Skip to main content

Section 80 CPC - Code of Civil Procedure - Notice.

 Section 80 CPC Description

1[(1)] 2[Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2), no suits 3[shall be instituted] against the Government (including the Government of the State of Jammu & Kashmir)] or against a public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such officer in his official capacity, until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been 4[delivered to, or left at the office of]-


(a) in the case of a suit against the Central Government, 5[except where it relates to a railway], a Secretary to that Government;


6[7[(b)] in the case of a suit against the Central Government where it relates to railway, the General Manager of that railway];


8[(bb) in the case of a suit against the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir the Chief Secretary to that Government or any other officer authorised by that Government in this behalf;]


(c) in the case of a suit against 9[any other State Government], a Secretary to that Government or the Collector of the district; 10[***]


11[***]


and, in the case of a public officer, delivered to him or left at this office, stating the cause of action, the name, description and place of residence of the plaintiff and the relief which he claims; and the plaint shall contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left.


12[(2) A suit to obtain an urgent or immediate relief against the Government (including the Government of the State of Jammu & Kashmir) or any public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity, may be instituted, with the leave of the Court, without serving any notice as required by sub-section (1); but the Court shall not grant relief in the suit, whether interim or otherwise, except after giving to the Government or public officer, as the case may be, a reasonable opportunity of showing cause in respect of the relief prayed for in the suit:


Provided that the Court shall, if it is satisfied, after hearing the parties, that no urgent or immediate relief need be granted in the suit, return the plaint for presentation to it after complying with the requirements of sub-section (1).


(3) No suit instituted against the Government or against a public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity shall be dismissed merely by reason of any error or defect in the notice referred to in sub-section (1), if in such notice-


(a) the name, description and the residence of the plaintiff had been so given as to enable the appropriate authority or the public officer to identify the person serving the notice and such notice had been delivered or left at the office of the appropriate authority specified in sub-section (1), and


(b) the cause of action and the relief claimed by the plaintiff had been substantially indicated.]


STATE AMENDMENTS


Madhya Pradesh -(i) After sub-section (3) of Section 80 the following inserted:


"(4) where in a suit or proceeding referred to in Rule 3B of Order 1, the state is joined as a defendant or non applicant or where the Court Orders joinder of the State as defendant or non applicant in exercise of powers under Rule 10(2) of Order 1 such suit or proceeding shall not be dismissed by reasons of Omission of the plaintiff or applicant to issue notice under sub-section (1)".


(ii) In sub-section (1) of section 80 for the words "sub-section (2)" substitute "sub-section (2) or (4)". [M.P. Act No. 29 of 1984].


1. Sec. 80 renumbered as sub-section (1) of that section by Act No. 104 of 1976, sec. 27 (w.e.f. 1-2-1977).


2. Subs, by Act No. 104 of 1976, sec. 27 for "No suit shall be instituted' (w.e.f. 1-2-1977).


3. Subs. by Act 26 of 1963, sec. 3 for "shall be instituted against the Government" (w.e.f. 5-6-1964). The words in italics were subs. by the A.O. 1948 for "instituted against the Crown".


4. Subs. by the A.O. 1937, "in case of the Secretary of State in Council, deliver to , or left at the office of a Secretary to the L.G. or the COntroller ofn the district".


5. Ins. by Act 6 of 1948, sec. 2.


6. Clause (aa) ins. by Act 6 of 1948, sec. 2.


7. Clause (aa) relettered as clause (b) and the former clause (b) omitted by the A.O. 1948.


8. Ins. by the Act 26 of 1963, sec. 3 (w.e.f. 5-6-1964).


9. Subs. by the Act 26 of 1963, sec. 3 for "a State Government" (w.e.f. 5-6-1964).


10. The word "and" omitted by the A.O. 1948.


11. Clause (d) omitted by the A.O. 1948.


12. Ins. by Act No. 104 of 1976, sec. 27 (w.e.f. 1-2-1977).

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree