Search The Civil Litigator

Wednesday, May 21, 2014

Permission to file SLP

Jasbir Singh v. Vipin Kumar Jaggi, (2001) 8 SCC 289 at page 298

Appeal has been preferred from an order passed in proceedings to which the appellant was not a party and the appellant has not challenged the order by which his application for intervention was rejected. The Supreme Court still granted permission to file SLP.

 

Permission to file SLP: When to be granted | Standing

Ram Nandan Singh v. AG Office Employees Coop. House Construction Society Ltd., (2007) 14 SCC 102

 

13. The appellants are members of the Society. They have been pursuing their cause before the High Court. They were impleaded as parties in the letters patent appeal. Not only in the capacity of interveners but also as persons aggrieved, they are, therefore, entitled to file petition for grant of special leave. The preliminary objection in regard to maintainability of the appeal raised by Ms Bagchi is rejected

Sunday, May 18, 2014

Same matter pending in SC, HC not to exercise jurisdiction

Chhavi Mehrotra v. Director General, Health Services, 1995 Supp (3) SCC 434:

"It is a clear case where the High Court ought not to have exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 where the matter was clearly seized of by this Court in a petition under Article 32. The petitioner was eo nomine a party to the proceedings before this Court. It is an unhappy situation that the learned Judge of the High Court permitted himself to issue certain directions which, if implemented, would detract from the plenitude of the orders of this Court. The learned Single Judge's perception of justice of the matter might have been different and the abstinence that the observance of judicial propriety, counsels might be unsatisfactory; but judicial discipline would require that in a hierarchical system it is imperative that such conflicting exercise of jurisdiction should strictly be avoided. We restrain ourselves from saying anything more."

When the same dispute is subject matter before the Supreme Court, the High Court cannot entertain writ petition in respect of the same


Union of India v. Jaiswal Coal Co. Ltd., (1999) 5 SCC 733 


Saturday, May 3, 2014

Intervention

Ram Nandan Singh v. AG Office Employees Coop. House Construction Society Ltd., (2007) 14 SCC 102 at page 107

12. In Ravi Rao Gaikwad case [(2006) 5 SCC 62] , this Court observed that the purpose of grant of application for intervention is to entitle the interveners to address arguments in support of one or the other side.

 

Thursday, February 27, 2014

Wednesday, February 5, 2014

Necessity of framing Points of Determination in First Appeal as per Order 41 Rule 31

A.M. Sangappa @ Sangappa v. Sangodeppa, 2013 (14) SCALE 384

See also (2010) 13 SCC 530

Sent from BlackBerry® on Airtel