Skip to main content

Order 27A CPC - Code of Civil Procedure - SUITS INVOLVING A SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW AS TO THE INTERPRETATION OF [THE CONSTITUTION] [OR AS TO THE VALIDITY OF ANY STATUTORY INSTRUMENT]

 Order 27A CPC Description

1[Order XXVIIA. SUITS INVOLVING A SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW AS TO THE INTERPRETATION OF 2[THE CONSTITUTION] 3[OR AS TO THE VALIDITY OF ANY STATUTORY INSTRUMENT]


1. Order XXVIIA (containing rules 1, 2, 3, and 4) Ins. by act 23 of 1942, sec.2.


2. Subs. by the A.O. 1950, for "the Government of India Act, 1935, or any Order-inCouncil made thereunder".


3. Ins. By Act 104 of 1976, sec. 77 (w.e.f. 1-2-1977).


1. Notice to the Attorney General or the Advocate-General


In any suit in which it appears to the Court that any such question as is referred to in clause (1) of Article 132, read with Article 147 of the Constitution is involved, the Court shall not proceed to determine that question until after notice has been given to the Attorney General for India if the question of law concerns the Central Government and to the Advocate-General of the State if the question of law concerns a State Government.


1[lA. Procedure in suits involving validity of any statutory instrument


In any suit in which it appears to the Court that any question as to the validity of any statutory instrument, not being a question of the nature mentioned in rule 1, is involved, the Court shall not proceed to determine that question except after giving notice-


(a) to the Government pleader, if the question concerns the Government, or


(b) to the authority which issued the statutory instrument, if the question concerns an authority other than Government.]


1. Ins. by Act No. 104 of 1976, sec.77, (w.e.f. 1-2-1977).


2. Court may add Government as party


The Court may at any stage of the proceedings Order that the Central Government or a State Government shall be added as a defendant in any suit involving any such question as it referred to in clause (1) of Article 132 read with Article 147, of the Constitution, if the Attorney General for India or the Advocate-General of the State, as the case may be, whether upon receipt of notice under rule 1, or otherwise, applies for such addition and the Court is satisfied that such addition is necessary or desirable for the satisfactory determination of the question of law involved.


1[2A. Power of Court to add Government or other authority as a defendant in a suit relating to the validity of any statutory instrument


The Court may, at any stage of the proceedings in any suit involving any such question as is referred to in rule 1A, Order that the Government or other authority shall be added as a defendant if the Government pleader or the pleader appearing in the case for the authority which issued the instrument, as the case may be, whether upon receipt of notice under rule 1A or otherwise, applies for such addition, and the Court is satisfied that such addition is necessary or desirable for the satisfactory determination of the question.]


1. Ins. by Act No. 104 of 1976, sec. 77, (w.e.f. 1-2-1977).


1[3. Costs


Where, under rule 2 or rule 2A the Government or any other authority is added as a defendant in a suit, the Attorney-General, Advocate-General or Government Pleader or Government or other authority shall not be entitled to, or liable for, costs in the Court which Ordered the addition unless the Court, having regard to all the circumstances of the case for any special reason, otherwise Orders.]


1. Subs. by Act No. 104 of 1976, sec. 77 for rule 3 (w.e.f. 1-2-1977).


4. Application or Order to appeals


In application of this Order to appeals the word "defendant" shall be held to include a respondent and the word "suit" an appeal.


1[Explanation-In this Order, "statutory instrument" means a rule, notification, bye-law Order, scheme or form made as specified under any enactment.]


1. Ins. by Act No. 104 of 1976, sec. 77, (w.e.f. 1-2-1977).


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

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
Post a Comment
Read more

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
1 comment
Read more

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
Post a Comment
Read more