Corporate Law : CONTRACT OF GUARANTEE - SCHEME OF CONTRACT ACT,1872 1(a) It is submitted that Sections 133, 134, 135, 139, 140,141 and 145 of the...
Corporate Law : 1. It is submitted that the recovery proceedings against the Guarantor before hon’ble Debts Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter ‘DR...
Corporate Law : The jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain, try and decide any suit or proceeding in respect of the property, which is the s...
Corporate Law : Section 34 of the RDB Act provides that the said Act would have overriding effect. We have referred to the aforesaid provisions to...
Corporate Law : The author has first hand knowledge and experience that a large majority of projects fail, firstly, due to inexcusable delay in sa...
Corporate Law : Recently, hon’ble Supreme Court in Gangadhara Palo Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer & Another {(2011) 4 SCC 602; Decided on 08....
The yardstick would be to judge as to whether allegation in the adjudication proceeding as well as proceeding for prosecution is identical and the exoneration of the person concerned in the adjudication proceeding is on merits. In case it is found on merit that there is no contravention of the provisions of the Act in the adjudication proceeding, the trial of the person concerned shall be an abuse of the process of the court.”
ARTICLE 142 of the Constitution of India DO NOT CONSTITUTE A BINDING PRECEDENT. Even therein, the scope and ambit of this Court’s jurisdiction under Article 142 vis-`-vis existence of the statue and statutory rules and the constitutional mandate contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India had not been taken into consideration.
Recently, hon’ble Supreme Court in RAJENDRA PRASAD GUPTA V. PRAKASH CHANDRA MISHRA & ORS. {(2011) 2 SCC 705; Civil Appeal No(s). 984 of 2006-Decided on 12-01-2011} has held as follows (in para 2). Rules of procedure are handmaids of justice. Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure gives inherent powers to the court to do justice. That provision has to be interpreted to mean that every procedure is permitted to the court for doing justice unless expressly prohibited, and not that every procedure is prohibited unless expressly permitted.
The aspect of whether the provision of Section 33 is directory or mandatory WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF M. ANASUYA DEVI’S CASE (supra), and in fact, SECTION 33 OF THE STAMP ACT HAS NOT EVEN BEEN ADVERTED TO in the said judgment. The Supreme Court in the case of N. Bhargavan Pillai Vs. State of Kerala 2004 (13) SCC 217 has laid down that when any judgment, even of a Supreme Court, does not advert to a direct provision of law then, the JUDGMENT IS TO BE TREATED AS HAVING BEEN RENDERED PER INCURIAM.” (capitals mine)
(i) It is evident that EVERY INSTRUMENT shall be chargeable with duty, which is EXECUTED in India. (ii) The terms & conditions on “Airline ticket” or “Courier consignment receipt” etc are accepted orally by the buyer, rather there is IMPLIED ACCEPTANCE.iii) Therefore, “Airline ticket” or “Courier consignment receipt” etc are not EXECUTED INSTRUMENTS by both the parties, hence not chargeable with duty.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Provash Chandra Dalui & Anr (supra) has held that the essential element of waiver is that there must be a voluntary and intentional relinquishment of a known right or such conduct as warrants the inference of the relinquishment of such right. It means the forsaking the assertion of a right at the proper opportunity. Further, hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. Dularia Devi (supra) observed that in Ningawwa v. Byrappa & 3 Ors (supra) this Court said the legal position will be different if there is a fraudulent misrepresentation not merely as to the contents of the document but as to its character. The authorities make a clear distinction between fraudulent misrepresentation as to the character of the document and fraudulent misrepresentation as to the contents thereof. With reference to the former, it has been held that the transaction is void, while in the case of the latter, it is merely voidable.
Purpose of Arbitration Act : The purpose of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Act’) is to provide quick redressal to commercial dispute by private Arbitration. Quick decision of any commercial dispute is necessary for smooth functioning of business and industry. Internationally, it is accepted that normally commercial disputes should be solved through arbitration and not through normal judicial system. An arbitrator is basically a private judge appointed with consent of both the parties. He is expected to give his decisions quickly as he is not bound by the technical formalities of a court. In India, the need of arbitration is more because of very heavy burden on the judicial system and huge backlog of pending cases.
