Undertaking to Pay Damages - not contemplated in law

Vinod Seth v. Devinder Bajaj, (2010) 8 SCC 1 at page 15

26. But the Code nowhere authorises or empowers the court to issue a direction to a plaintiff to file an undertaking to pay damages to the defendant in the event of being unsuccessful in the suit. The Code also does not contain any provision to assess the damages payable by a plaintiff to the defendant, when the plaintiff's suit is still pending, without any application by the defendant, and without a finding of any breach or wrongful act and without an inquiry into the quantum of damages. There is also no contract between the parties which requires the appellant to furnish such undertaking. None of the provisions of either the TP Act or the Specific Relief Act or any other substantive law enables the court to issue such an interim direction to a plaintiff to furnish an undertaking to pay damages. In the absence of an enabling provision in the contract or in the Code or in any substantive laws a court trying a civil suit, has no power or jurisdiction to direct the plaintiff, to file an affidavit undertaking to pay any specified sum to the defendant, by way of damages, if the plaintiff does not succeed in the suit. In short, law does not contemplate a plaintiff indemnifying a defendant for all or any losses sustained by the defendant on account of the litigation, by giving an undertaking at the time of filing a suit or before trial, to pay damages to the defendants in the event of not succeeding in the case.

Importance of Procedures (Criminal Law - Preventive Detention)

Rekha v. State of T.N., (2011) 5 SCC 244 at page 257

38. Procedural rights are not based on sentimental concerns for the detenu. The procedural safeguards are not devised to coddle criminals or provide technical loopholes through which dangerous persons escape the consequences of their acts. They are basically society's assurances that the authorities will behave properly within rules distilled from long centuries of concrete experiences.

Why Litigant in Person may not be effective

Rekha v. State of T.N., (2011) 5 SCC 244 at page 252

16. The importance of a lawyer to enable a person to properly defend himself has been elaborately explained by this Court in A.S. Mohammed Rafi v. State of T.N.[(2011) 1 SCC 688 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 509 : AIR 2011 SC 308] and in Mohd. Sukur Ali v. State of Assam [(2011) 4 SCC 729 : JT (2011) 2 SC 527] . As observed by Mr Justice Sutherland of the US Supreme Court in Powell v. Alabama [77 L Ed 158 : 287 US 45 (1932)] (US p. 69), "[e]ven the intelligent and educated layman has small and sometimes no skill in the science of law", and hence, without a lawyer he may be convicted though he is innocent.

Sanction after retirement

Chittaranjan Das v. State of Orissa, (2011) 7 SCC 167 at page 170

14. We are of the opinion that in a case in which sanction sought for is refused by the competent authority, while the public servant is in service, he cannot be prosecuted later after retirement, notwithstanding the fact that no sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act is necessary after the retirement of the public servant. Any other view will render the protection illusory. Situation may be different when sanction is refused by the competent authority after the retirement of the public servant as in that case sanction is not at all necessary and any exercise in this regard would be action in futility.

 

 

 

Permission to file appeal / SLP

Jatan Kumar Golcha v. Golcha Properties, (1970) 3 SCC 573, para 83. - a person who is not a party to the suit may challenge it appeal with leave of the court and such leave should be granted if he would be prejudicially affected.. 

An order passed by mistake and ignorance can be reviewed

G. Srinivas v. Govt. of A.P., (2005) 13 SCC 712 at page 718

20. An order passed by mistake and ignorance of the relevant facts indisputably can be reviewed, if inter alia, it is found that a fraud was practised or there was wilful suppression on the part of the appellant.

 

Treating Ordinary Writ as " PIL "

Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd. v. Parenteral Drugs (India) (P) Ltd., (2001) 1 SCC 715 at page 719

6. Admittedly neither of the parties came to Court with a case of the nature as has been depicted above. While it is true that the observations of the Court as the one noticed above, are not as strictly warranted in the facts but one need not fail to appreciate that the law courts exist for the society and in the event of there being any social problem it would be well-within the domain of the law court to take such step or steps as they may deem fit and appropriate and this is so in spite of the fact that the lis between the parties does not warrant such a conclusion. But in the matter in issue by reason of the long lapse of time the whole exercise has become totally infructuous: Eleven years have passed and the State, however, has not taken any steps in terms thereof, prior to the obtaining the order of stay from this Court.