Legal News & Views

In KHOKHAR ILIYAS BISMILLAKHAN vs STATE OF GUJARAT, the learned trial court had convicted the applicant for cheque dishonour imposing one year Simple Imprisonment and also directed the applicant to pay compensation to the original complainant to the tune of Rs.13,50,000/-, in default to which, further imprisonment of six months was directed. The original complainant thereafter instituted Criminal Appeal for enhancement of sentence along with Criminal Misc. Application (stamp) No.8069 of 2020, for Leave to appeal under Section 378 of the Code. Subsequent thereto, with the intervention of prestigious people of society and friends and relatives, the applicant and the respondent no.2-original complainant arrived at a settlement/compromise and the same has also been reduced in writing in form of affidavit filed by original complainant dated 21.12.2020. The applicant submitted that the dispute and grievances have been amicably resolved between the parties and in connection whereof, settlemen

In Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchy Reddy (dead) by LRs. & Ors. (2008) 4 SCC 594, the Supreme Court summarized, the position in regard to suits for prohibitory injunction relating to immovable property, is as under : (a) Where a cloud is raised over plaintiff's title and he does not have possession, a suit for declaration and possession, with or without a consequential injunction, is the remedy. Where the plaintiff's title is not in dispute or under a cloud, but he is out of possession, he has to sue for possession with a consequential injunction. Where there is merely an interference with plaintiff's lawful possession or threat of dispossession, it is sufficient to sue for an injunction simpliciter. (b) As a suit for injunction simpliciter is concerned only with possession, normally the issue of title will not be directly and substantially in issue. The prayer for injunction will be decided with reference to the finding on possession. But in cases where de jure possessio

In Revajeetu Builders and Developers Vs. Narayanswamy and Sons & Ors (2009) 10 SCC 84, the Supreme Court lain down some basic principles emerge which ought to be taken into consideration while allowing or rejecting the application for amendment: (1) Whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the case; (2) Whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala fide? (3) The amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money; (4) Refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to multi- ple litigation; (5) Whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case? and (6) as a general rule, the court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation on the date of application.

In M/S IMZ CORPORATE PVT LTD vs MSD TELEMATICS PVT LTD, petition was filed before the Delhi High Court appointment of a Sole Arbitrate based on an MOU signed between the parties. Among the objections raised by the Respondents, it was argued that the MoU in question is an unstamped document. The same is therefore not a contract enforceable by law. Non-payment of stamp duty on a commercial contract would invalidate the arbitration agreement and render it non-existent and unenforceable in law. The Court cannot consider the same while exercising jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Act. Without prejudice to other contentions, the Court can impound the original MoU which does not bear stamp duty and once the issue of stamp duty and penalty is decided by the concerned authority, then IMZ must bring the MoU to the notice of the Court, whereupon the Petition can be adjudicated in accordance with law. The Respondent had further argued that notwithstanding the judgment of the Supreme Court in N.