DIANA KRAFT

While excluding advocates from the purview of the CP Act is fair and could be justified for a number of reasons, the judgment suffers from some serious procedural lapses. Read the full story here: https://lnkd.in/dg9NRctt #SupremeCourtofIndia #Advocates #ConsumerProtectionAct2019 #BarandBench

29

SC answers when an application should be filed for extension of time under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: https://lnkd.in/dUm5as5q  In a common judgement, the Supreme Court resolved the dilema of the right time to file the application for extension of time under Sections 29A(4) and 29A(5) of the A & C Act. The court held an application for extension of the time period for passing an arbitral award under Section 29A(4) read with Section 29A(5) is maintainable even after the expiry of the twelve-month or the extended six-month period, as the case may be. The court specified that such extension could not be granted mechanically upon filing of the application. The court has to exercise judicial discretion and deter any party from abusing the process of law or espousing a frivolous or vexatious application. The court while adjudicating such extension applications should be guided by the principle of sufficient cause. The court also clarified that  terms and conditions can be imposed while granting the extension. #royzzco #royzzattorneys #arbitrationlawyers #extensionoftime #arbitrationpetition #arbitrationapplication

5

Bombay High Court Dismisses Speculative Suit on Waqf Property, Affirms Civil Court Jurisdictional Bar: “Mere Apprehension Without Cause of Action Is Not Maintainable” Court’s Decision The Bombay High Court quashed the Trial Court’s order, rejecting the application filed under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC, and dismissed the special civil suit. The court held that the suit lacked a valid cause of action and that disputes related to Waqf properties fall under the jurisdiction of the Waqf Tribunal as per Sections 83 and 85 of the Waqf Act, 1995. Facts The applicant, a Waqf Trust registered under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, owns properties, including Survey Nos. 58 and 60 in Thane, which are designated as Waqf properties. The plaintiffs purchased land adjacent to these properties, with access provided through the Waqf land. The plaintiffs had been using this easement for ingress and egress for 32 years without interference. However, they filed a suit seeking a declaration of this right after noticing obstructions placed by the Trust. The Trust responded by filing for rejection of the suit, arguing that the civil court lacked jurisdiction under the Waqf Act. Issues Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes involving access to Waqf property. Whether a suit based on the plaintiff’s apprehensions without substantive cause of action is maintainable. Court’s Reasoning The court found that the plaintiffs’ case was based solely on apprehensions of obstruction without substantial cause of action. It underscored that no concrete steps had been taken by the Trust to interfere with the plaintiffs’ easementary right. The court concluded that the suit was speculative, as the Trust had only requested a survey of its property, which did not amount to an obstruction or infringement on the plaintiffs’ right. Conclusion The court allowed the Trust’s application under Order VII, Rule 11, rejecting the plaintiffs’ suit and quashing the Trial Court’s order. It permitted the refund of the court fee and clarified that the plaintiffs could seek relief through appropriate forums if any future interference occurred. #BombayHighCourt #WaqfProperty #CivilProcedure #LegalPrecedent #JurisdictionalBar #PropertyRights #CourtRulings #WaqfAct1995 #LegalUpdates #JusticeDelivered

1

In a key ruling, the Jharkhand High Court held that writ petitions challenging Labour Court compensation orders are not maintainable when a statutory appeal process is available. The court dismissed a petition seeking to overturn a ₹3,36,000 compensation order, urging the petitioner to follow the proper appeal route under the Employee's Compensation Act. The judgment reinforces the importance of exhausting legal remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction. #jharkhandhighcourt #compensationlaw #employeerights #legaljustice #courtrulings #statutoryremedies #workplaceaccidents

1

[S. 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996] Any attempt to modify an award would amount to crossing the 'Lakshman Rekha'; Sikkim HC reiterates Read More Here- https://lnkd.in/g4vF7wxB #SikkimHighCourt #arbitrationandconciliationact #CommercialCourt #GoodsandServicesTax #LakshmanRekha #SikkimHC #scconline #SCC #legalnews #legalknowledge #scctimes #legalblog #legalupdates #lawstudent #legalresearch #legalstudies #surestwaytolegalresearch #bringingyouthebestlegalnews

7

Arbitration: Applicability of section 36(2) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to Execution Proceeding initiated under section 36(1) and power of Executing as well as Appellate Court to stay the Execution Proceeding during pendency of an Appeal preferred under Section 37 – Orissa High Court Case Citation: (2024) ibclaw.in 656 HC https://lnkd.in/gaT2n6qi

3

Supreme Court Seeks Response On Surrogacy Law Restricting Second Child Link: https://lnkd.in/dHrHJFHn #supremecourt #sc #surrogacylawsindia #surrogacy #surrogacylaws #restthecase #legal #legalnews

2

Case Title: Mohd Abdul Samad v. The State of Telangana & Anr. (2024) . . . Follow @theoryofabrogation & @najeebkhan11 for more !! To start your preparation for Judicial Services Examination at home, drop a message on WhatsApp +918840961324 or call us on +91 9151591324 . . #LegalUpdate #CriminalLaw #Judiciary #JusticeSystem #SupremeCourt #TripleTalaq #MuslimWomenRights #Justice #LegalVictory #Section125 #CriminalProcedureCode #WomenEmpowerment #LegalReform #MaintenanceRights #IndianLaw #Equality #HumanRights #SocialJustice

13

Incarceration for Civil Contempt for Unauthorized Practice by Rebecca Durcan is the latest Regulation Pro blog entry: https://lnkd.in/dqWzrmJi #professionalregulation There is significant discretion in imposing a penalty for civil contempt of court for breaching an order prohibiting the unauthorized use of title, holding out, and performing controlled acts. The Court in Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario v. Alsoma, 2024 ONSC 1924 gave guidance on how that discretion can be exercised. Mr. Alsoma, an unregistered individual, operated and managed a dental practice. In 2018 he consented to the regulator obtaining a civil court order prohibiting him from calling himself “Doctor” or from holding himself out as a dentist. A complaint was subsequently filed with the regulator about the dental care provided by Mr. Alsoma. An investigation revealed that Mr. Alsoma had repeatedly performed procedures in a speciality area of dentistry related to implants. The Court accepted that the 2018 consent order had been breached and that Mr. Alsoma had also performed controlled acts. The Court imposed a penalty consisting of 45 days of house arrest, 100 hours of community service, a fine of $10,000, future compliance with the prohibition, cooperation with the regulator monitoring compliance, and substantial indemnity costs payable to the regulator of $31,807. In fashioning this penalty, the Court made the following points: • The purpose of the penalty is to ensure compliance with court orders and respect for the courts and the principle of the rule of law. • Courts should consider alternatives to imprisonment whenever possible. • In this case there were several aggravating factors and no mitigating factors. The breach of the consent order, which was designed to maintain public health, was flagrant, intentional, and repeated. The breach involved specialized dental care that requires additional training by dentists. The breach was worsened by the absence of records which created further health risks for the patient. There was actual harm to a patient, not just a theoretical risk of harm. Mr. Alsoma showed no remorse and had not admitted the breach. • In the circumstances, the penalty was proportionate and measured, and was designed to achieve the goals of denunciation and general and specific deterrence. • The amount of the fine in this case was related to the profit made by Mr. Alsoma in the treatment of the patient. • The fine was payable to the government, not the patient or the regulator, to avoid an appearance that it was a form of civil damages. • The costs reflected the legal expenses incurred by the regulator. This amount of costs was indicated by the nature of the contempt and supported the deterrent effect of the order. However, the Court declined to order payment of the costs of the investigation in the circumstances of this case. [see link for the entire blog]

15

Section 139(9): How to Respond to a Defective Return Notice? https://lnkd.in/gnDrEX-3 #Section #Section139(9) #Defective #Return #Notice #ReturnNotice #Section139

1