Common Law

Hi, I am documenting a credible resource for Arbitration matters, that includes: (a) check list before filing of St. of Claim, or section 9 or 11 Applications, S.34 or 37 Appeal, either by the Judgment debtor or by the Claimant, check list before passing of Award; (b) compilation of latest rulings on almost all important issues that arises in Arb. Proc. (c) Templates of Statement of Claims. (d) Templates of oral and written arguments. (e) Nature of legal proceeding. (f) Draft Rules for the conduct of Arbitration, that may be adopted by any Trade Association or by any other Entity / person, including by Advocates.   May Explore: Check list: https://www.litigationplatform.com/Judgment/Index/54ed92df-1ed1-483f-8792-1f76cb98b278 Rulings: https://www.litigationplatform.com/Judgment/Index/766cd7c2-1157-4bc0-ab3a-908f77a88a68 Templates of Statement of Claim: https://www.litigationplatform.com/Judgment/Index/a233ae51-d92b-4f9c-864e-b21f55a5896d   Proced...

  It is said that Bail is Rule and Jail is an exception in Bail Cases. In a Society, which we do call it civilized, a Jail reduces a human being to animal. Jailing is akin to chaining human, where inherent human dignity is imminently lost.  A Justice, Judge or a Magistrate, being a reflection of superior human being, must deemed to stand for personal liberty, and can never argue for chaining a fellow human, unless it is vehemently shown that fellow human has acquired an Animal instinct of grave danger.  Therefore, in Bail matters, where limited issue is of personal liberty, a Judge indisputably stands for personal liberty. Therefore, Bail matters are inherently different from other Legal Cases. In other Legal Cases, the Judges, dispassionately, may be deciding rights of the parties. But in Bail matters, Judges stand for Personal liberty; and therefore in Bail Cases, Judges have to “argue” passionately, Impugning Prosecution, in favour of personal liberty, unless a...

In a Case before it, the Hon’ble Apex Court had the occasion to reiterate that: “Truth is the foundation of Justice. The entire judicial system has been created only to discern and find out the real truth. Judges at all levels have to seriously engage themselves in the journey of discovering the truth. That is their mandate, obligation and bounden duty”. (AIR 2012 SC 1727) Notwithstanding, holy pronouncements such as above, Parties to the litigation play tricks, invent false and fabricated Cause of action, makes evasive and ambiguous replies, distort and suppress facts and documents that are prejudicial to their Case. Nevertheless, the Law has answer to every trick. The Civil Procedure Code, that is, the CPC, provides a fascinating tool to discover the Truth of the matter. The CPC, under Order XI, provides for Discovery of “Truth” by production of documents and Discovery by putting up Interrogatories. Discovery means the act of revealing or disclosing any matter by a Defendant in his a...

The expression “Cause of action” perhaps is the most dynamic legal expression, embracing diverse aspects. Remarkably, given the judicial meaning assigned to the expression “Cause of action”, one may notice that the Cause of action is “complete” at the “accrual” of Cause of action. Therefore, the “fact” (overt act of commission or omission) that triggered the Cause of action, actually completes the “chain of events”; and proving of this solitary “important fact” may entitle Plaintiff / Petitioners the Judgment. Technically speaking, if this fact is proved, all other facts in the chain of events are deemed to have been proved.  It may be appreciated that Cause of action is a bundle of facts; and these bundle of facts are not isolated or independent facts, but are a chain of events.  The principle ingrained in section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872, may be of greatest assistance at every stage in the dispensation of justice. I am convinced that while arguing any case before Court,...

This Court is pained to observe the manner in which the Corporation functions and deals with individuals who are economically weak and not so literate, and who are unfortunately compelled to incur additional expense of obtaining Court Orders, only due to the careless manner in which the Corporation discharges its duties. This is “judicial notice / observation” of “matter of a common knowledge” of “ill treatment being meted out by officers of Mumbai Municipal Corporations to poor and illiterate section of the Society. [WP (L) No.3180 of 2019] The “Judicial notice of fact” implies that, a fact which is otherwise all pervasive yet elusive, attains the status of judicial recognition of its existence. A litigant who knocks the doors of Justice, are require to prove their Case, by leading evidence, to claim judgment in their favour. The Courts and the Judges too are anxious to hand out justice, in the very real sense of the term. Therefore, in the administration and dispensation of ju...

As the name would indicate, a Convenience Note is one that is tendered before Court in any judicial or quasi proceeding, which makes job of the presiding Judge, Convenient, in the dispensation of justice. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in a Criminal Appeal, arising out of an SLP (Criminal), in the Case of Kaushal Verma versus State of Chhatisgarh (Order dated 08.12.2020) had the occasion to whole heartedly praise the Standing Counsel for Chhatisgarh for tendering Synopsis of the Case in 2 pages “Convenience Note”, which gave snapshot of the entire Case, and assisted the Hon’ble Court in quickly appreciating the facts of the Case; and passing appropriate Order. The Hon’ble Court went on to direct the Registry that, “Note may be taken as the Standard Format by all the learned counsel appearing for various State Governments in this Court. The Registry may circulate copies of this Order to all the learned Standing Counsel for the States”. A Convenience Note is a Written Note of Argument which...

1.  Order XIV of CPC, 1908, deals with Issues. Sub Rule (4) of Rule 1 of Order XIV, says: Issues are of two kinds: (a) Issues of Fact; (b) Issues of Law. Don’t know who is the genius who has formulated this third term: mixed question of law and fact. 2.  This third category of “mixed question of fact and law”, actually doesn’t exist, and is thoroughly misconceived. The Courts, it is observed, are quite reluctant in deciding the legal proceedings, at the threshold, ordinarily on the grounds that the “Plea” agitated is a mixed question of law and fact. Let us try to comprehend the vagueness of this expression. 3.  A fact is composed of Law. A fact can never be looked upon in isolation to Law. That is to say, an assertion of a fact must be in consonance to the mandate of Law; and a factual assertion must derives its legitimacy from Law itself. 4.  Whence one say that a plea / assertion of a fact raises a mixed question of law and fact, he / she appears to be saying that...

Any Litigation hinges on Facts and Facts alleged are require to be proved. A fact is proved by Evidence. Evidence is that which makes the fact asserted - clear and evident, demonstrative and established. The word evidence in its relation to law includes all the legal means, exclusive of mere arguments which tend to prove or disprove any fact, the truth of which is submitted for judicial investigation. Facts are state of things such as events, circumstances, acts and omissions, capable of being perceived by the senses; state of mind, i.e. intentions of dishonesty, fraudulently; negligence; ill will etc. or of good faith; state of law, and such forth. According to Section 3 of Evidence Act 1872, Evidence means and includes  all statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry (oral evidence; and   all documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of the Court (documentary evid...

“The Petitioners have been able to make out a strong prima facie Case”, said the Court; or, “the Respondents have been able to show reasonable defense or the existence of a dispute”. We do find such observations of Courts at the stage of Admissions of matters, like in Writ jurisdiction, or during applications for urgent interim reliefs in Suit proceedings, hearings in Summons for Judgment in Summary Suits, and qua “existence of dispute”, u/s 8(2)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. These expressions assumes critical significance, because, based on the legal import of these expressions, the Courts ventures to grant decisive interim reliefs at interim stage of the litigation; and in fact, also finally decide the lis, under various jurisdictions. The Courts in such jurisdictions, endeavour to strike a delicate balance between two rival and elementary legal principles: (a) a party must have full opportunity to defend the allegation made against it, before subjecting it to...