Appeal will lie against decree and not againts judgment (finding)

Amendment to make a suit maintainable

1.    Paragon Rubber Industries v. Pragathi Rubber Mills, (2014) 14 SCC 762 : (2015) 1 SCC (Civ) 394 : 2013 SCC OnLine SC 1054 at page 771, this Hon'ble Court has held that:

20. Having said this, we are still not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the High Court permitting the plaintiff to amend the plaint. The High Court was mindful of the fact that under the 1999 Act, a composite suit could be filed and would be maintainable by the court at Kottayam. The Court was aware that the plaintiff has filed the suit on 19-3-2001, but the 1999 Act was not enforced till 15-9-2003. In our opinion, the High Court has passed the order in exercise of its discretionary powers taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case. The discretion exercised by the High Court cannot be said to be either erroneous or perverse. It has been exercised only to avoid multiplicity of litigation. The defendant (respondent) could not dispute that insofar as suit predicated on the copyright is concerned, the Court at Kottayam is having requisite jurisdiction in view of the provisions of Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act. Therefore, had the suit been filed for violation of copyright alone, the court at Kottayam could validly entertain the same. By permitting the plaintiff to amend the plaint so that the suit will be maintainable before the District Court, Kottayam, no error was committed by the High Court.

Conduct of Parties in Grant of Injunction

Mandali Ranganna v. T. Ramachandra, (2008) 11 SCC 1 at page 8

21. While considering an application for grant of injunction, the court will not only take into consideration the basic elements in relation thereto viz. existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, it must also take into consideration the conduct of the parties.

Strict parameters governing an interim injunction do not have full play in matters of custody

Athar Hussain v. Syed Siraj Ahmed, (2010) 2 SCC 654 : (2010) 1 SCC (Civ) 528 at page 668, para 50

Thus the strict parameters governing an interim injunction do not have full play in matters of custody.

Custody in Habeas Corpus

Veena Kapoor v. Varinder Kumar Kapoor, (1981) 3 SCC 92 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 650 at page 93

3. It is difficult for us in this habeas corpus petition to take evidence without which the question as to what is in the interest of the child cannot satisfactorily be determined. We, therefore, direct that the learned District Judge, Chandigarh, will make a report to us before the 23rd of this month on the question as to whether the custody of the child should be handed over to the petitioner-mother, taking into consideration the interest of the minor. The learned Judge will give liberty to the parties to adduce evidence on the question in issue. The learned District Judge may either take up the matter himself or assign it to an Additional District Judge, if there is any at Chandigarh.

Equality of Arms - Bombay HC

2006 SCC OnLine Bom 1155 : (2007) 2 Mah LJ 79 : (2007) 113 FLR 234 (Bom) : (2007) 3 Bom CR 212 : (2007) 1 CLR 580

Post Settlement - Guidelines for Quashing 482 CrPC

Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1189, decided on 04.10.2017

 

http://www.scconline.com/DocumentLink/qZe7uF78

 

he Court summarised the elaborate principles laid down by the Supreme Court in various cases. Below is the summary of the principles:

• The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Also, the power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.
• In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences.
• As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.
• Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice.
• Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.