It is relevant to note that expression “proceedings” as referred to in explanation contains only an inclusive definition. What is explained in explanation is not exhaustive rather inclusive. Dismissal of an application Under Order IX Rule 13 Code of Civil Procedure in default, is an order passed in miscellaneous proceedings, which is expressly included in Section 141 Code of Civil Procedure explanation
CHILD WITNESS In Rameshwar S/o Kalyan Singh v. The State of Rajasthan, AIR 1952 SC 54, this Court examined the provisions of Section 5 of Indian Oaths Act, 1873 and Section 118 […]
The expression `colour of duty’ must now be examined in the facts of this case. In Venugopal’s case, Supreme Court held as under: It is easy to see that if the act […]
It may also be observed that by ordering that a question may properly be put to a witness who was being examined, no case was decided by the Trial court. The expression “case” is not limited in its import to the entirety of the matter in dispute in an action. This Court observed in Major S. S. Khanna vs. Brig. F. J. Dillon (1964) 4 SCR 409 that the expression “case” is a word of comprehensive import:it includes a civil proceeding and is not restricted by anything contained in S. 115 of the Code to the entirety of the proceeding in a civil Court.
To put it differently, the power to impose a modified punishment providing for any specific term of incarceration or till the end of the convict’s life as an alternate to death penalty, can be exercised only by the High Court and the Supreme Court and not by any other inferior court.
When a presumption is rebuttable, it only points out that the party on whom lies the duty of going forward with evidence, on the fact presumed and when that party has produced evidence fairly and reasonably tending to show that the real fact is not as presumed, the purpose of the presumption is over.
Enquiries which were considered administrative at one time are now being considered as quasi-judicial in character. Arriving at a just decision is the aim of both quasi-judicial enquiries as well as administrative enquiries. An unjust decision in an administrative enquiry may have more far reaching effect than a decision in a quasi-judicial enquiry.
that if a statute empowers an authority, not being a court in the ordinary sense, to decide disputes arising out of a claim made by one party under the statute which claim is opposed by another party and to determine the respective rights of the contesting parties who are opposed to each other, there is a lis and prima facie and in the absence of anything in the statute to the contrary it is the duty of the authority to act judicially and the decision of the authority is a quasi-judicial act
Interpreting the scope and meaning of “reasonable cause” provided in Section 11(4)(v) of the Act a Division Bench of this Court in Paulina Joseph v. Idukki District Wholesale Co-operative Consumer Stores Ltd., 2006 (1) KLT 603, held that if there is a plausible explanation to the question why the business was not run in the premises continuously, it may be a relevant fact in considering whether there was reasonable cause for cessation of occupation.
We think that the reviewing authority must make a determination on the basis of the whole evidence before it, whether a reasonable man would in the circumstances infer that there is real likelihood of bias. The court must look at the impression which other people have.
Corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of a prosecutrix is not a matter of Law, but a guidance of prudence under given circumstances. Indeed, from place to place, from age to age, from varying life-styles and behavioural complexes, inferences from a given set of facts, oral and circumstantial, may have to be drawn not with dead uniformity but realistic diversity lest rigidity in the shape of rule of Law in this area be introduced through a new type of precedential tyranny