Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 15

Order XXXVII

Specific Suits upon Bill Of Exchange, Hundis and Promissory Notes-

Suits on these types of matters have been classified as a different category of suits under the scheme of the Code of Civil Procedure and summary procedure has been laid down in Order XXXVII for expeditious disposal of the suits upon bill of exchange and promissory notes etc. These are specific suits and specific provisions have been made under Order XXXVII for hearing and disposal of this class of suits. On the other hand Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure contains general provision about filing suit, other than the suits that falls within specific category under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure………...........(7) 

Companies Act, (XVIII of 1994); Sections 59 and 64

Company Rules, 2009; Rules 30 and 36

Confirmation of Reduction of Share Capital-

The proposal for confirmation of reduction of share capital comes within the purview of the clause-(c) sub-section (1) of section 59 of the Act and this has been considered by the Court following the resolution for reducing the share capital, as quoted.

The formalities laid down in Rules No.30 to 36 of the Company Rules, 2009 have been complied with and affidavit of compliance have according­ly been filed.

The resolution for reducing share capital shall taken effect on the registration of the same………………………….(9 &11) 

It is abuse of the process of the Court to prevent in exer­cising the inherent power of this Court conferred under section 561A of the Code of criminal proce­dure-

The alleged act of the petitioners do not attract section 406 of the Penal Code. There is no application of section 420 of the Penal Code against the petition­ers as there is no allegation that they obtained the tin sheet fraudulently inducing anybody to part with the same to him. Furthermore the proceeding cannot continue against the petitioner alone as the abettor of the offence of criminal breach of trust punishable under section 406 of the Penal Code without the principal offender of such offence………(10) 

Whether Wrong Decla­ration by the Importer has negative Impact in Due Process of Law-

Although the importer gave wrong declaration, as to the country of ori­gin, since there are specific provisions in the Customs Act for dealing with wrong decla­ration by the importer at the entry point, the authority can not detain the goods without due process of law.

There are no cogent reason for detaining the goods in question pur­chased by the petitioner..

When there is no dispute that the goods have been imported as duty free item and not restricted or prohibited item, there cannot be any legal reason for continued seizure of the same merely because those were found abandoned near a RAB camp or that the country of origin as declared in bill of entry does not tally with the country of origin mentioned on the bags of the goods………………………..(14 & 15) 

Whether Wrong Decla­ration by the Importer has negative Impact in Due Process of Law-

Although the importer gave wrong declaration, as to the country of ori­gin, since there are specific provisions in the Customs Act for dealing with wrong decla­ration by the importer at the entry point, the authority can not detain the goods without due process of law.

There are no cogent reason for detaining the goods in question pur­chased by the petitioner..

When there is no dispute that the goods have been imported as duty free item and not restricted or prohibited item, there cannot be any legal reason for continued seizure of the same merely because those were found abandoned near a RAB camp or that the country of origin as declared in bill of entry does not tally with the country of origin mentioned on the bags of the goods………………………..(14 & 15) 

Limitation Act (IX of 1908); Section 5 & 14.

Condonation of delay in filing appeal –

Whether time spent by filing a case in the wrong forum due to mistaken advice is to be condoned--That mistaken advice given by a counsel and for that matter even by a senior counsel may constitute sufficient cause for condoning deley if that is bonafide. 

Admissibility of Certified copy of the registered documents --Proof of the contents of the original document-

Registering Officers are to give certified copies of all registered documents which are admissible for purpose of proving the contents of the original document.. The copies thus given are in so far as the original registered documents are concerned. Where a case for the reception of secondary evidence is made out under the provisions of section 65 of the Evidence Act, certified copy of the registered document becomes admissible in proof of the contents of the original document under the provisions of section 57(5) of the Registration Act…..(9)

Under section 33 of the Evidence Act, evidence given by a witness before any person authorised by law to take it, is relevant for the purpose of proving in a subsequent judicial proceeding the truth of facts which it states, when the witness is dead or cannot be found or is incapable of giving evidence or is kept put of the way by the adverse party or if his presence cannot be obtained without an amount of delay or expense which, under the circumstances of the case, the Court considers unreasonable. The normal rule of interpretation of section 33 of the Evidence Act is that in criminal cases strict proof ought to be given that the requirements of section 33 have been fulfilled, but in civil case a party can, if he chooses, waive the proof…….(12)

A possessory owner/ Trespasser

A trespasser is entitled to maintain his possession against the entire world except the true owner. A possessory owner is also entitled to maintain his possession, be he a bargader or even a trespasser as against the entire world except its rightful owner………(15) 

Demarcating a joint holding

sub-section (3) of section 117 that that when an order under sub section (1) has been passed subdividing a joint holding, such sub-division may be demarcated on the ground and shown on the cadestral survey map. Thus the scheme of sub-division is very much clear for the purpose of Adjudication that has been provided under Chapter XII of Part--V of the Act……………. (9) 

Whether a Written Document Considered as Best Evidence

When there was admittedly a written document it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to produce the same as it was the best evidence-

It is a cardinal rule of evidence, not one of technicality, out of substance, that were written documents exist they shall be produced as being the best evidence of their own contents. Nothing is more dangerous than to allow parol evidence to be given of what they are alleged to contain when there is reason to suppose that the documents themselves exist. If a letter exists, it may contain something very different from that which the witness represents to be its contents. When an important letter is not produced and no explanation is given for, its non-production, an inference not unnaturally arises, either that the letter, if written, does not contain that which it is represented to contain and therefore, that it would not suit the purpose of the party to produce it, or that no such letter ever existed….(7) 

Order 41 rule 23, 24 & 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Evidence on record is sufficient— No need for Remand

Where the evidence on record is sufficient the appellate Court is competent to determine the suit finally and there is no need for remand.

Under Order 41 rule 25 of the Code, only specific issues are sent to the trial Court for findings and not for re-trial of the entire suit. After the return of the findings by the trial Court the appeal is to be heard under Order 41 rule 26 of the Code…… (10-11)

Whether disagreement with the findings of the trial Court is ground for sending a case on remand—

Order 41 rule 24 of the Code is a clear and standing bar in such cases when the evidence on record is sufficient to decide the matter finally. Under Order 41 rules 23 and25 the Code clearly lays down that there can be no remand unless the conditions laid down in those rules exist…… (10-12)

Deduction of the amount payable by the tenant to recover from the landlord—

In case of urgency, the tenant may serve a notice in the prescribed form under section 21(4) of the Ordinance requiring the landlord to make such repairs within 72 hours of the notice and at the same time submit a copy of the notice to the Controller together with the estimate of the costs of such repairs and of the landlord after receipt of such notice fans to repair the tenant may himself undertake such repairs and after completion of the same submit to the Controller a statement of the cost thereof and the Controller after considering the statement and after further enquiry may by an order determine the amount of costs that the tenant is entitled to recover from the landlord and the tenant may thereupon deduct the amount so determined from the rent or otherwise recover from the landlord…………….(17)

Claims of set-off—Conditions-Not bared by limitations- Order 8, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

The relevant provisions dealing with set-off are- (a) the suit must be for recovery of money (b) the claim demanded to be set-off must be an ascertained sum of money (c) it must be legally recoverable from the plaintiff (d) it must not exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court (e) both parties must fill the same character as they fill in the plaintiff's suit (f) the claim must be made at the first hearing unless permitted by the Court to do so afterwards.

The claim demanded to be set off must be legally recoverable from the plaintiff. The sum claimed as set-off which is; barred by limitation or barred under some other law cannot be deemed- to be legally recoverable.

The payment of taxes and other dues to the local, authorities, are legally recoverable-and can be claimed as set off by the tenant against the claim of the landlord, since they do not come within the purview of section 21 of the Ordinance and no permission from the Rent Controller is required for payment of the same by the tenant…… (20-22)

Unpaid Court fees can be ordered to be paid at any stage by the person by whom such fee is payable—

The Court may in its discretion, at any stage, allow the person by whom such fee is payable, to pay the whole or part, as the case may be of such Court fee and upon such payment the document shall have the same force and effect as if such fee had been paid in the first instance. The discretion has given to the Court to allow Court fees to be paid at any stage by the person by whom such fee is payable…………… (24)