Skip to main content

Time period for filing written statement is directory and not mandatory

In Dukhi Mirdha v. Ramdas Mirdha, the main issue before the Jharkhand High Court was whether the period of filing written statement can be extended beyond the time period which is prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
The petitioners application seeking extension had been rejected by the trial court.

The High Court observed that as per the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Rani Kusum v. Kanchan Devi, the parties to a dispute are bound by the time frame provided under Order-VIII Rule 1 for filing written statement, however the Court is not bound by the same. The Court further cited the case of Kailash v. Nanhku, and held that the provision under O.VIII R-1 is merely directory in nature and the Court can, in appropriate cases extend the time frame provided under this provision. It further held that the dispute revolved around a property admeasuring 22 acres and hence the petitioner had substantial interest in it. Further, the petitioner had provided sufficient reasons in his application seeking extension of time but without giving due consideration to those reasons, the trial court had rejected his application. The Court set aside the order of the trial judge and ordered that the written statement of the petitioner shall be taken on record.

 Article referred: https://blog.scconline.com/post/2018/10/04/time-period-under-order-viii-rule-1-cpc-for-filing-written-statement-is-directory-and-not-mandatory-in-nature/

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more