Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

SC: Liberty Cannot Be Granted For Amending Plaint While Rejecting It Under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC

The case was of Sayyed Ayaz Ali V. Prakash G Goyal. The case was heard by a Bench composed of Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice M R Shah. The Supreme Court, while it rejected a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, held that liberty cannot be granted to the plaintiff by the Court to amend the plaint. The Apex Court noted that Order VII Rule 11 dealt with a situation where time is fixed by the Court for correction of the valuation of the requisite stamp paper. 

What do you think of this case?

SC Upholds Right To Challenge Constitutional Amendment Affecting States Power

While answering the Centre’s submissions that there was no challenge by the states against the 97th Amendment to the Constitution, the Supreme Court observed that it was the duty of the Court to observe the Amendment when it had been challenged by a citizen of India. The Bench which consisted of Justice B R Gavai, Justice R F Nariman and Justice K M Joseph, further noted that the Constitution of India is a national charter for governance which affected individuals and institutions alike. 

What do you think of this case?

SC: Third Party Insurance Deemed To Be Transferred With Effective Control Over Vehicle In Hire Agreement

The case is of Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation V. National Insurance Company Limited and Ors. The Supreme Court reiterated that when a motor vehicle is hired by a transport corporation for use, from its registered owner, the third party insurance coverage also gets transferred. The decision was given by the Division Bench composed of Justice S Abdul Naseer and Justice Krishna Murari. It was further noted by the Court that the person who has effective control over the vehicle is regarded as the ‘owner’. 

What do you think of this case?

Bombay HC: PIL Filed To Relax Travel Restrictions For Fully Vaccinated People

A Public Interest Litigation has been filed in the Bombay High Court which sought for the complete relaxation of travel restrictions for people who had been completely vaccinated. The petition was filed by Mohan  Bhinde who is a Chartered Accountant. The petitioner was represented by Advocate Neelaja Kirpekar and Shekhar Bhagat. It seeks directions to be issued to the Maharashtra Government once a period of 15 days has lapsed after the administration of the second dose of the vaccine. 

What do you think of this case?

Jammu and Kashmir HC: Procedural Requirements Only Safeguard Available To Detenue

The case was Wasim Ahmad Trag v. Union Territory of J&K and Ors. The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that procedural requirements were the only safeguards that a detenue had and hence they had to be strictly complied with. The decision was given by Justice Rajnesh Oswal. The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority could not be followed, as stated by the Court. The petitioner had been accused under the NDPS Act and was challenging the order of preventive detention issued against him.

What do you think of this case?

"Loved reading this piece by Brinda Kundu?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"

Tags :

  Views  212  Report

Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query