advocatemmmohan

advocatemmmohan http://advocatemmmohan.wordpress.com just another law knowledge bank Thu, 23 Feb 2012 15:36:24 +0000 en hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ http://0.gravatar.com/blavatar/839ad91c4c55fa2102d2fa2965bed7c9?s=96&d=http%3A%2F%2Fs2.wp.com%2Fi%2Fbuttonw-com.png advocatemmmohan http://advocatemmmohan.wordpress.com BABA RAMDEV=APEX COURT HELD THAT THE GOVT. REACTED OUTRAGEOUSLY- =An individual is entitled to sleep as comfortably and as freely as he breathes. Sleep is essential for a human being to maintain the delicate balance of health necessary for its very existence and survival. Sleep is, therefore, a fundamental and basic requirement without which the existence of life itself would be in peril. To disturb sleep, therefore, would amount to torture which is now accepted as a violation of human right. It would be similar to a third degree method which at times is sought to be justified as a necessary police action to extract the truth out of an accused involved in heinous and cold- blooded crimes. It is also a device adopted during warfare where prisoners of war and those involved in espionage are subjected to treatments depriving them of normal sleep. 39. Can such an attempt be permitted or justified in the given circumstances of the present case? Judicially and on the strength of impartial logic, the answer has to be in the negative as a sleeping crowd cannot be included within the bracket of an unlawful category unless there is sufficient material to brand it as such. The facts as uncovered and the procedural mandate having been blatantly 249 = The Police Force has failed to act in accordance with the Rules and Standing Orders. Primarily, negligence is attributable to some 133 http://advocatemmmohan.wordpress.com/2012/02/23/baba-ramdevapex-court-held-that-the-govt-reacted-outrageously-an-individual-is-entitled-to-sleep-as-comfortably-and-as-freely-as-he-breathes-sleep-is-essential-for-a-huma/ http://advocatemmmohan.wordpress.com/2012/02/23/baba-ramdevapex-court-held-that-the-govt-reacted-outrageously-an-individual-is-entitled-to-sleep-as-comfortably-and-as-freely-as-he-breathes-sleep-is-essential-for-a-huma/#comments Thu, 23 Feb 2012 15:31:54 +0000 advocatemmmohan http://advocatemmmohan.wordpress.com/?p=14060 Continue reading »]]> http://advocatemmmohan.wordpress.com/2012/02/23/baba-ramdevapex-court-held-that-the-govt-reacted-outrageously-an-individual-is-entitled-to-sleep-as-comfortably-and-as-freely-as-he-breathes-sleep-is-essential-for-a-huma/feed/ 0 advocatemmmohan freedom of speech English: Photo of Baba Ramdev taken by me whil... provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C can be invoked in stead of filing of second revision petition, in case, there is apparent injustice. Thus, the facts of the present case do not warrant any interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C being a second revision under the garb of Section 482 Cr.P.C. If it was CRM No. M 37269 of 2010 11 permitted, then every petition facing the bar under Section 397(3) could be challenged under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Thus, the present petition is neither maintainable nor is there any merit in the same. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed on both counts i.e. on the question of maintainability as well as on merits. http://advocatemmmohan.wordpress.com/2012/02/23/provisions-of-section-482-cr-p-c-can-be-invoked-in-stead-of-filing-of-second-revision-petition-in-case-there-is-apparent-injustice-thus-the-facts-of-the-present-case-do-not-warrant-any-interferenc/ http://advocatemmmohan.wordpress.com/2012/02/23/provisions-of-section-482-cr-p-c-can-be-invoked-in-stead-of-filing-of-second-revision-petition-in-case-there-is-apparent-injustice-thus-the-facts-of-the-present-case-do-not-warrant-any-interferenc/#comments Thu, 23 Feb 2012 12:34:54 +0000 advocatemmmohan http://advocatemmmohan.wordpress.com/?p=14050 Continue reading »]]> http://advocatemmmohan.wordpress.com/2012/02/23/provisions-of-section-482-cr-p-c-can-be-invoked-in-stead-of-filing-of-second-revision-petition-in-case-there-is-apparent-injustice-thus-the-facts-of-the-present-case-do-not-warrant-any-interferenc/feed/ 0 advocatemmmohan English: The supreme court of india. Taken abo... whether the High Court can pass an order on an application entertained after final disposal of the criminal appeal or even suo motu particularly, in view of the provisions of Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called Cr.P.C.) and as to whether in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the High Court can ask a particular investigating agency to investigate a case following a particular procedure through an exceptionally unusual method which is not in consonance with the statutory provisions of Cr.P.C. =The error in the impugned orders of the High Court transgresses judicious discretion. The process adopted by the High Court led to greater injustice than securing the ends of justice. The path charted by the High Court inevitably reflects a biased approach. It was a 6 http://advocatemmmohan.wordpress.com/2012/02/23/whether-the-high-court-can-pass-an-order-on-an-application-entertained-after-final-disposal-of-the-criminal-appeal-or-even-suo-motu-particularly-in-view-of-the-pr/ http://advocatemmmohan.wordpress.com/2012/02/23/whether-the-high-court-can-pass-an-order-on-an-application-entertained-after-final-disposal-of-the-criminal-appeal-or-even-suo-motu-particularly-in-view-of-the-pr/#comments Thu, 23 Feb 2012 12:28:43 +0000 advocatemmmohan http://advocatemmmohan.wordpress.com/?p=14041 Continue reading »]]> http://advocatemmmohan.wordpress.com/2012/02/23/whether-the-high-court-can-pass-an-order-on-an-application-entertained-after-final-disposal-of-the-criminal-appeal-or-even-suo-motu-particularly-in-view-of-the-pr/feed/ 0 advocatemmmohan 1993 AIR SC 1361, it has been held that learned Sessions Judge’s powers under section 397 (3) Cr.P.C. while hearing the revision, are equivalent to that of High Court and anyone cannot avail two opportunities of filing revision under the garb of Section 482 Cr.P.C.. When once his revision was found unsubstantial by the learned Sessions Judge under section 397 (1) Cr.P.C., then the remedy under section 482 Cr.P.C. is barred and he cannot file this petition. 5. So in view of the above, this petition is legally barred and is not maintainable under section 482 Cr.P.C.. http://advocatemmmohan.wordpress.com/2012/02/23/1993-air-sc-1361-it-has-been-held-that-learned-sessions-judges-powers-under-section-397-3-cr-p-c-while-hearing-the-revision-are-equivalent-to-that-of-high-court-and-anyone-cannot-avail-t/ http://advocatemmmohan.wordpress.com/2012/02/23/1993-air-sc-1361-it-has-been-held-that-learned-sessions-judges-powers-under-section-397-3-cr-p-c-while-hearing-the-revision-are-equivalent-to-that-of-high-court-and-anyone-cannot-avail-t/#comments Thu, 23 Feb 2012 12:02:12 +0000 advocatemmmohan http://advocatemmmohan.wordpress.com/?p=14027 Continue reading »]]> http://advocatemmmohan.wordpress.com/2012/02/23/1993-air-sc-1361-it-has-been-held-that-learned-sessions-judges-powers-under-section-397-3-cr-p-c-while-hearing-the-revision-are-equivalent-to-that-of-high-court-and-anyone-cannot-avail-t/feed/ 0 advocatemmmohan English: Clock Tower, at Har-ki-Pauri, Haridwar. The issue regarding filing of petition before the High Court after having availed first revision petition before the Court of Sessions has come up before the Supreme Court and this Court repeatedly. While laying that section 397(3) Cr.P.C. laid statutory bar of second revision petition, the courts have held that High Court did enjoy inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. as well to entertain petitions even in those cases. But, that power was to be exercised sparingly and with great caution, particularly, when the person approaching the High Court has already availed remedy of first revision in the Sessions Court. This was not that in every case the person aggrieved of the order of the first revision court would have the right to be heard by the High Court to assail the same order which was the subject matter of the revision before Sessions Court.=It is settled proposition of law that at the stage of framing of charges it is not obligatory for the Judge of trial to consider any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording of final guilt or otherwise of accused, is not exactly to be applied at the stage of deciding the matter under section 227 and 228 of Cr.P.C. Further at this stage, the Court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. Strong suspicion against the accused, leading the court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence is enough. http://advocatemmmohan.wordpress.com/2012/02/23/the-issue-regarding-filing-of-petition-before-the-high-court-after-having-availed-first-revision-petition-before-the-court-of-sessions-has-come-up-before-the-supreme-court-and-this-court-repeatedly-w/ http://advocatemmmohan.wordpress.com/2012/02/23/the-issue-regarding-filing-of-petition-before-the-high-court-after-having-availed-first-revision-petition-before-the-court-of-sessions-has-come-up-before-the-supreme-court-and-this-court-repeatedly-w/#comments Thu, 23 Feb 2012 10:50:42 +0000 advocatemmmohan http://advocatemmmohan.wordpress.com/?p=14020 Continue reading »]]> http://advocatemmmohan.wordpress.com/2012/02/23/the-issue-regarding-filing-of-petition-before-the-high-court-after-having-availed-first-revision-petition-before-the-court-of-sessions-has-come-up-before-the-supreme-court-and-this-court-repeatedly-w/feed/ 0 advocatemmmohan Western Court, Delhi, India. Architect R. J. R... On 21.07.2011, respondent No.2 – Commissioner of Police passed a detention order against the detenu under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers 2 = Detaining Authority has concluded as under:- “Hence, I am satisfied that the accused Kajamalai Viji @ Vijay is habitually committing crimes and also acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of Public order and as such he is a Goonda as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act No. 14 of 1982. By committing the above described grave crime in a busy locality cum business area, he has created a feeling of insecurity in the minds of the people of the area in which the occurrence took place and thereby acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.”= we are in entire agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the High Court, consequently, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. http://advocatemmmohan.wordpress.com/2012/02/22/on-21-07-2011-respondent-no-2-commissioner-of-police-passed-a-detention-order-against-the-detenu-under-section-3-of-the-tamil-nadu-prevention-of-dangerous-activ/ http://advocatemmmohan.wordpress.com/2012/02/22/on-21-07-2011-respondent-no-2-commissioner-of-police-passed-a-detention-order-against-the-detenu-under-section-3-of-the-tamil-nadu-prevention-of-dangerous-activ/#comments Wed, 22 Feb 2012 13:51:49 +0000 advocatemmmohan http://advocatemmmohan.wordpress.com/?p=14010 Continue reading »]]> http://advocatemmmohan.wordpress.com/2012/02/22/on-21-07-2011-respondent-no-2-commissioner-of-police-passed-a-detention-order-against-the-detenu-under-section-3-of-the-tamil-nadu-prevention-of-dangerous-activ/feed/ 0 advocatemmmohan Habeas Corpus (1928 film) “(j) Whether the Full Bench of the High Court has grossly erred in reversing the finding of the earlier Division Bench that on a correct interpretation of the Proviso to clause (vii) of Section 36(1) and clause (v) to Section 36(2) is only to deny the deduction to the extent of bad debts written off in the books with respect to which provision was made under clause (viia) of the Income Tax Act? (k) Whether the Full Bench was correct in reversing the findings of the earlier Division Bench that if the bad debt written off relate to debt other than for which the provision is made under clause (viia), such debts will fall squarely within the main part of clause (vii) which is entitled to be deduction and in respect of that part of the debt with reference to which a provision is made under clause (viia), the proviso will operate to limit the deduction to the extent of the difference between that part of debt written off in the previous year and the = we hold that the provisions of Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Act are distinct and independent items of deduction and operate in their respective fields. The bad debts written off in debts, other than those for which the provision is made under clause (viia), will be covered under the main part of Section 36(1)(vii), while the proviso will operate in cases under clause (viia) to limit deduction to the extent of difference between the debt or part thereof written off in the previous year and credit balance in the provision for bad and doubtful debts account made under clause (viia). The proviso to Section 36(1)(vii) will relate to cases covered under Section 36(1)(viia) and has to be read with Section 36(2)(v) of the Act. Thus, the proviso would not permit benefit of double deduction, operating with reference to rural loans while under Section 36(1)(vii), the assessee would be entitled to general deduction upon an account having become bad debt and being written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee for http://advocatemmmohan.wordpress.com/2012/02/21/j-whether-the-full-bench-of-the-high-court-has-grossly-erred-in-reversing-the-finding-of-the-earlier-division-bench-that-on-a-corr/ http://advocatemmmohan.wordpress.com/2012/02/21/j-whether-the-full-bench-of-the-high-court-has-grossly-erred-in-reversing-the-finding-of-the-earlier-division-bench-that-on-a-corr/#comments Tue, 21 Feb 2012 17:25:01 +0000 advocatemmmohan http://advocatemmmohan.wordpress.com/?p=14000 Continue reading »]]> http://advocatemmmohan.wordpress.com/2012/02/21/j-whether-the-full-bench-of-the-high-court-has-grossly-erred-in-reversing-the-finding-of-the-earlier-division-bench-that-on-a-corr/feed/ 0 advocatemmmohan Appeal to the Great Spirit CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: ss. 482 and 397 – Petition seeking to quash order of Judicial Magistrate issuing summons – Dismissed by High Court holding that remedy u/s 397 could be availed of – HELD: Issuance of summons is not an interlocutory order within the meaning of s.397 – Only because a revision petition is maintainable, it would not constitute a bar to entertain an application u/s 482 – Matter remitted to High Court for decision afresh – Alternative remedy – Interlocutory order. A criminal complaint was filed against appellant no. 1, its Chairman and the Managing Director, namely, appellants no. 2 and 3, on the allegations that the ‘Gutkha’ manufactured by the company was found to be adulterated in terms of r.62(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. The Judicial Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons. The petition filed by the appellants u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking to quash the criminal proceedings was dismissed by the High Court holding that revisional jurisdiction u/s 397 of the Code could be availed of. In the appeal filed by the accused, the question for consideration before the Supreme Court was: Whether an application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be dismissed only on the premise that an alternative remedy of filing a revision application u/s 397 of the Code was available? = Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: Issuance of summons is not an interlocutory order within the meaning of s. 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Only because a revision petition is maintainable, the same by itself would not constitute a bar for entertaining an application under s. 482 of the Code. The power of the High Court can be exercised not only in terms of s. 482 but also in terms of s. 483 of the Code. Inherent power of the High Court is not conferred by statute but has merely been saved thereunder. Thus, it cannot be said that the jurisdiction of the High Court would be held to be barred only because the revisional jurisdiction could also be availed of. The judgment of the High Court is set aside. It would consider the matter afresh on merits. [Para 8, 10 and 16] [848-C-D; 849-A; 854-C-D] R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866; Som Mittal v. Govt. of Karnataka (2008) 3 SCC 574; Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others (2003) 6 SCC 675; Krishnan and another v. Krishnaveni and another (1997) 4 SCC 241; Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal and others (2004) 7 SCC 338 and Amar Nath and others v. State of Haryana and others AIR 1977 SC 2185, relied on. G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. (2000) 2 SCC 636 and Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ravi Shankar Srivastava (2006) 7 SCC 188, referred to. Vishwanaath Ramkrishna Patil and another v. Ashok Murlidhar Sonar and Anr. 2006 (5) Mh.L.J. 671 and Keki Bomi Dadiseth and others v. State of Maharashtra 2002 (3) Mh.L.J.246, approved. V.K. Jain and others v. Pratap V. Padode and Anr. 2005 (30) Mh.L.J. 778, overruled. Case Law Reference: 2005 (30) Mh.L.J. 778 overruled para 6 AIR 1960 SC 866 relied on para 8 (2008) 3 SCC 574 relied on para 8 (2003) 6 SCC 675 relied on para 8 (1997) 4 SCC 241 relied on para 10 (2004) 7 SCC 338 relied on para 10 AIR 1977 SC 2185 relied on para 11 (2000) 2 SCC 636 referred to para 12 (2006) 7 SCC 188 referred to para 13 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 2055 of 2008. From the Judgment & Order dated 21.12.2006 of the High Court Bombay at Mumbai in Criminal Application No. 7220 of 2005. Siddharth Dave, Neil Hildreth, Praveen Kumar and Tarun Gulati for the Appellants. Madhavi Diwan and Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure for the Respondents. http://advocatemmmohan.wordpress.com/2012/02/21/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-ss-482-and-397-petition-seeking-to-quash-order-of-judicial-magistrate-issuing-summons-dismissed-by-high-court-holding-that-remedy-us-397-could-be-availed-of/ http://advocatemmmohan.wordpress.com/2012/02/21/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-ss-482-and-397-petition-seeking-to-quash-order-of-judicial-magistrate-issuing-summons-dismissed-by-high-court-holding-that-remedy-us-397-could-be-availed-of/#comments Tue, 21 Feb 2012 12:48:23 +0000 advocatemmmohan http://advocatemmmohan.wordpress.com/?p=13994 Continue reading »]]> http://advocatemmmohan.wordpress.com/2012/02/21/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-ss-482-and-397-petition-seeking-to-quash-order-of-judicial-magistrate-issuing-summons-dismissed-by-high-court-holding-that-remedy-us-397-could-be-availed-of/feed/ 0 advocatemmmohan United Kingdom Supreme Court=This case is about the employment status of individuals who are resident in Great Britain and are employed by a British company but who travel to and from home to work overseas. Halliburton Manufacturing & Services Ltd (“the appellant”) is a UK company which is based at Dyce, near Aberdeen. It is one of about 70 subsidiary or associated companies of Halliburton Inc, which is a US corporation. It supplies tools, services and personnel to the oil industry. The employee, Ismail Ravat (“the respondent”), lives in Preston, Lancashire and is a British citizen. He was employed by the appellant from 2 April 1990 as an accounts manager until he was dismissed with effect from 17 May 2006. The reason for his dismissal was redundancy. The respondent complains that he was unfairly dismissed. The complication in his case is that at the time of his dismissal he was working in Libya. The question is whether the employment tribunal has jurisdiction to consider his complaint. An employment tribunal sitting in Aberdeen (Mr RG Christie, sitting alone) held on 23 November 2007 that it had jurisdiction. That decision was set aside by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (Lady Smith, sitting alone) in a judgment which was given on 14 November 2008. The respondent appealed under section 37(1) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 to the Inner House of the Court of Session. On 22 June 2010 an Extra Division (Lord Osborne and Lord Carloway, Lord Brodie dissenting) allowed his appeal: 2011 SLT 44. The appellant now appeals to this court. The question whether the respondent’s complaint of unfair dismissal can be heard in Scotland is, as the decisions below show, not an easy one to answer. Section 94(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 provides: “An employee has the right not to be unfairly dismissed.” Section 230(1) of that Act provides that “employee” means an individual who has entered into or works under (or, where the employment has ceased, worked under) a contract of employment. Neither of these provisions contains any geographical limitation. Nor is any such limitation to be found anywhere else in the Act. As Lord Hoffmann observed in Lawson v Serco Ltd [2006] UKHL 3, [2006] ICR 250, para 1, the statement in section 244(1) that the Act extends to England and Wales and Scotland means only that it forms part of the law of Great Britain and does not form part of the law of any other territory, such as Northern Ireland (to which the subsection states the Act does not apply), for which Parliament could have legislated. Yet it is plain that some limitation must be implied. As Lady Hale noted in Duncombe v Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families (No 2) [2011] UKSC 36, [2011] ICR 1312, para 5, it was agreed in that case that section 94(1) could not apply to all employment anywhere in the world. That must indeed be so: see also Lawson, para 6, where Lord Hoffmann said that all the parties in that case were agreed that the scope of section 94(1) must have some territorial limits. But this does not solve the problem as to where the line is to be drawn between those cases to which section 94(1) applies and those to which it does not. It is not straightforward. As Louise Merrett, The Extra-Territorial Reach of Employment Legislation (2010) 39 Industrial Law Journal 355, has pointed out, increasing labour mobility together with the proliferation of multinational companies and groups of companies has made the international aspects of employment law important in an ever-growing number of cases. The present case is an illustration of the problems that this gives rise to. http://advocatemmmohan.wordpress.com/2012/02/21/united-kingdom-supreme-courtthis-case-is-about-the-employment-status-of-individuals-who-are-resident-in-great-britain-and-are-employed-by-a-british-company-but-who-travel-to-and-from-home-to-work-ove/ http://advocatemmmohan.wordpress.com/2012/02/21/united-kingdom-supreme-courtthis-case-is-about-the-employment-status-of-individuals-who-are-resident-in-great-britain-and-are-employed-by-a-british-company-but-who-travel-to-and-from-home-to-work-ove/#comments Tue, 21 Feb 2012 11:49:15 +0000 advocatemmmohan http://advocatemmmohan.wordpress.com/?p=13976 Continue reading »]]> http://advocatemmmohan.wordpress.com/2012/02/21/united-kingdom-supreme-courtthis-case-is-about-the-employment-status-of-individuals-who-are-resident-in-great-britain-and-are-employed-by-a-british-company-but-who-travel-to-and-from-home-to-work-ove/feed/ 0 advocatemmmohan English: Halliburton headquarters, aerial view... Civil Procedure-Addition of parties-Declaratory suit-Claim of status as married wife Admission by husband-Right of wife and son denying plaintiff’s claim, to be added as Parties- Mohammedan law-Code of Civil Procedure (Act V of 1908), O. I, r 10(2)-Specific Relief Act (1 of 1877), ss. 42, 43. = The appellant instituted a suit against the third respondent, inter alia, for a declaration that she was his lawfully married wife, alleging that though the fact of her marriage was known to all who knew him, he was trying to suppress the facts in such a way that the members of his family should conclude that she was not his Nikah wife, that he refused to openly acknowledge her as his legally wedded wife and that this conduct on his part had cast a cloud on her status as such wife and was affecting the rights of the issue of the marriage, her three daughters. The third respondent filed his written statement admitting the claim, but on the same date respondents i and 2 made an application under 0. i, r. 10(2), of the Code of Civil Procedure for being impleaded in the suit as defendants on the grounds that they were respectively the wife and son of the third respondent, that they were interested in denying the appellant’s status as wife and the status of her children is the legitimate children of the third respondent, that the suit was the result of a collusion between the appellant and the third respondent and that if the appellant was declared to be lawfully wedded to the third respondent, the rights and interests of respondents i and 2 in the estate of the third respondent would be affected. The application was contested by both the appellant and the third respondent. The trial court allowed the application and the order was confirmed by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction. The question was whether the lower courts did not exceed their powers in directing the addition of respondents i and 2 as parties-defendants in the action : Held (per Sinha and Kapur jj. Imam J., disscenting), that in view of the averments in the plaint which showed that not only the third respondent but the other members of his family, including respondents i and 2, were interested in denying the appellant’s status as a legally wedded wife, respondents i and 2 were proper parties to the suit. The question of addition of parties under O. I, r. 10, of the Code of Civil Procedure is generally not one of initial Jurisdiction of the court, but of a judicial discretion ; in a suit for a declaration as regards status or a legal character under S. 42 Of 1112 the Specific Relief Act, the rule that in order that a person may be added as a party he must have a present or direct interest in the subject-matter of the suit, is not wholly applicable, and the rule may be relaxed in a suitable case where the court is of the opinion that by adding that party it would be in a better position effectually and completely to adjudicate upon the controversy. In such suits the court is not bound to grant the declaration prayed for, on a mere admission of the claim by the defendant, if the court has reasons to insist upon clear proof, apart from the admission. A declaratory judgment in respect of a disputed status will be binding not only upon the parties actually before the court but also upon persons claiming through them respectively, within the meaning of s. 43 Of the Specific Relief Act. The word ” respectively ” in the section has been used with a view to showing that the parties arrayed on either side, are really claiming adversely to one another, so far as the declaration is concerned. Per Imam J.-The facts of the present case do not justify the addition of respondents i and 2 as defendants under the provisions of 0. i, r. 1O(2), of the Code of Civil Procedure, because..:- (1)There is nothing in the pleadings to suggest that respondents 1and 2 were denying the appellant’s status as wife of the third respondent, and the court ought not to compel the plaintiff to add parties to the suit where on the face of the pleadings plaintiff has no cause of action against them. (2)Under the Mohammedan law a man is entitled to have four wives at one and the same time and, consequently, as the third respondent has admitted that the appellant was married to him, respondents i and 2 have no locus standi to make any representation in the suit that there was collusion between the appellant and the third respondent. (3)During the lifetime of the third respondent neither the appellant nor her children on the one hand nor respondents i and 2 on the other have any rights in his estate, under the Mohammedan law. (4)Assuming that a declaration in the suit would be binding upon respondents i and 2, which is doubtful having regard to the terms of S. 43 of the Specific Relief Act, that would be no justification for their being impleaded in the suit where the issue is not one of inheritance but one of marriage between the appellant and the third respondent. =1958 AIR 886, 1959SCR1111, , , http://advocatemmmohan.wordpress.com/2012/02/21/civil-procedure-addition-of-parties-declaratory-suit-claim-of-status-as-married-wife-admission-by-husband-right-of-wife-and-son-denying-plaintiffs-claim-to-be-added-as-part/ http://advocatemmmohan.wordpress.com/2012/02/21/civil-procedure-addition-of-parties-declaratory-suit-claim-of-status-as-married-wife-admission-by-husband-right-of-wife-and-son-denying-plaintiffs-claim-to-be-added-as-part/#comments Tue, 21 Feb 2012 11:31:55 +0000 advocatemmmohan http://advocatemmmohan.wordpress.com/?p=13947 Continue reading »]]> http://advocatemmmohan.wordpress.com/2012/02/21/civil-procedure-addition-of-parties-declaratory-suit-claim-of-status-as-married-wife-admission-by-husband-right-of-wife-and-son-denying-plaintiffs-claim-to-be-added-as-part/feed/ 0 advocatemmmohan English: Chowmahalla Palace. English: Qamar-ud-din Khan Siddiqi, Chin Kilij... Mogul style minature of Sikander Jah, Asaf Jah...