Month: March 2019

Whether an interlocutory order in a suit or proceeding amounts to a ‘case decided’ for the purpose of Section 115, C.P.C

RAMESH LAL HANTUKA Vs. SURESH LAL SHANTUKA – the meaning of the term ‘case decided’ has been widened after the amendment introducing the explanation to Sub-section (2) of Section 115, C.P.C. But in spite of this extended meaning the Courts have held that any and every order passed in the course of a suit does not amount to a ‘case decided’ and the order must relate to adjudication of some right or obligation of the parties in controversy for this purpose – ORISSA HIGH COURT [ 10-08-1984 ]


If appellate Court allowed adducing additional evidence, the trial Court cannot deny such a party from adducing evidence

SHRI RANJIT KUMAR SARKAR AND OTHERS Vs. SHRI HIRALAL SARKAR AND OTHERS – The appellate Court allowed the parties to adduce evidence on the additional issue, no further application either by the plaintiff or by the defendant is required for recalling a witness. Trial Court would accept the evidence in examination-in-chief as additional evidence, particularly, to depose on the additional issue framed. – GAUHATI HIGH COURT [ 04-04-2012 ]

Application for additional issue if moved at belated stage is no ground to decline if the fact is not disputed

SMT. KRISHNA KANWAR AND OTHERS Vs. SATYA PAL SINGH CHAUHAN (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS AND OTHERS – As it is the duty of the Court to frame the proper/specific issues on all the points raised in the pleadings. Even if a party could not press for an issue at the initial stage that party is not debarred from claiming of framing an additional issue at the later stage – PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT [26-04-2016]

How to interpret a taxing statute

In interpreting a taxing statute, equitable considerations are entirely out of place. A taxing statute cannot be interpreted on any presumption or assumption. A taxing statute has to be interpreted in the light of what is clearly expressed; it cannot imply anything which is not expressed; it cannot import provisions in the statute so as to supply any deficiency.

Bajaj Auto Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 – Manufacturing establishments are exempted from the liability towards National Calamity Contingent Duty, Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess  from payment of Central Excise Duty  under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1944 Act’ – Supreme Court of India – March 27, 2019


“absconder” means a person against whom a warrant is in force on account of an offence under the Indian Penal Code or any other law or in respect of whom an order […]

Classes of tenants

There shall be, for the purpose of this Act, the following classes of tenants, (namely) :— (1) tenure-holders, including under-tenure-holders, (2)raiyats, and (3) under-raiyats, that is to say, tenants holding whether immediately […]


“Occupant” includes every zamindar, tenure-holder, farmer and other person entitled to receive rents in respect of land or holding land on a claim that he is so entitled, and every raiyat in occupation of land […]

Tenure-holder and Raiyat

(1) “Tenure-holder” means primarily a person who has acquired from a proprietor or from another tenure-holder a right to hold land for the purpose of collecting rents or bringing it under cultivation […]

Tenure and tenure-holder

“Tenure” includes all permanent interests in land, with the exception of estates as above defined, and with the exception of those of raiyats having a right of occupancy only; it also includes all ghatwali holdings; “tenure-holder” […]