Appeal from dismissal on default

If an application under order 9 rule 13 of CPC for setting aside an exparte decree is dismissed, the aggrieved party can file an appeal against the decree itself on the ground that the material brought on record by the plaintiff was insufficient or the suit was not maintainable (2005) 3 SCC 427

Recall of Ex Parte Order by Labour Court

Hindustan Tobacco Company v. First Labour Court, West Bengal , 1995 1 CHN 398 (Calcutta High Court)

 

An ex parte order passed by the Labour can be recalled by it under inherent powers to adopt its own procedure

 

But power of review is to be expressly conferred (2005) 13 SCC 777.

How should courts consider judgments

In Haryana Financial Corporation v. Jagdamba Oil Mills [ 2002 (46) ALR 717 (SC).] , the Hon'ble Apex Court held that Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits-in with the fact situation of the decision relied upon

Value of CAG Reports

Arun Kumar Agrawal v. Union of India, (2013) 7 SCC 1 at page 24

68. We may, however, point out that since the report is from a constitutional functionary, it commands respect and cannot be brushed aside as such, but it is equally important to examine the comments what respective Ministries have to offer on the CAG's Report. The Ministry can always point out, if there is any mistake in the CAG's report or the CAG has inappropriately appreciated the various issues. For instance, we cannot as such accept the CAG report in the instance case.

 

Judgment becomes binding immediately, no communication from Government is required

AIR 1995 All 152, Para 7  Dr Rohit Gupta v. SN Medical College

 

Difference between locus and right of impleadment

U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi, (1995) 2 SCC 326 at page 358

37…. Between the locus and right of impleadment there is a world of difference. The two cannot be equated. A person having locus may not be denied appearance but a person who is necessary party cannot be denied impleadment. The former is permissive, the latter is mandatory. A local body may have locus to appear for the limited purpose but once it opts to keep out it cannot claim to be necessary party whose non-impleadment renders the proceedings invalid.

 

Complexity of a decision-making process cannot be a defence when a grievance is made before the Court by a citizen that his fundamental right to equality has been violated

C.M. Thri Vikrama Varma v. Avinash Mohanty, (2011) 7 SCC 385 at page 396

26. In our view, complexity of a decision-making process cannot be a defence when a grievance is made before the Court by a citizen that his fundamental right to equality has been violated. When such a grievance is made before the Court, the authorities have to justify their impugned decision by placing the relevant material before the Court.