Skip to main content

Res Sub Judice

 Res Sub Judice

Conflicts between tenant and owner of the property is really common these days
So , here’s an illustration of a conversation between tenant and owner
Owner – Neither you are paying the rent nor you are leaving the house , I will file a a case against you
Tenant – I wont leave the house nor pay the rent because no maintenance has been done for a year .
Owner institutes a case against the tenant in court A , and during the one going trial in court A , owner approached court B for the same case

Section 10 speaks about Res Sub Judice
So, court B shall not proceed with the trial of case instituted by owner as a suit has already been filed by the owner and trial is going on in court A. Trial shall not begin in a court if it is pending in same or other competent court ,if both cases respondent and accused is the same ,  if the dispute is same ,  if the matter is same ,if title is same .
So, with the above illustration , Court b can accept the case , but cannot start the trial of the case and give it a stay order as the exact same case trial is in action in court A.
Exception – If the case is pending in a foreign court ,the court can take the case otherwise any Indian court which is in India or outside India formed by central government cannot start the trial of the case if the same if pending in other court .

Case laws

In , SPA Annamalay chetty v. BA thorhill, AIR 1931 PC 236 – ‘why stay of suit’ or ‘Res Sub Judice’

It was cleared that the object of the section is to protect a person from a multiplicity of proceedings and avoid a conflict of decisions. It also protects the litigants people from unnecessary harassment and also saves the time of the court and same case does not require multiple trials at the same time.


Indian bank v. Maharashtra State cop. Marketing federation Ltd.

It was mentioned in this case that -It provides that civil court should not proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is directly or substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit because the same parties in the court before which the previous list to the suit is pending is competent to grant the relief sought.

When Res sub judice cannot be applicable -

In case of , Alimallah v. Sheikh 

It was held that this doctrine cannot be applied as the point that issues are distinct and different..


In case of , Abdur v. Asrafun

It was mentioned that this doctrine cannot be applied as there are some issues in common and others are different issues When compared to the case instituted in other court


In case of , Manzar v. Rema 

It was cleared that this doctrine is not applicable as even if the respondent an accused are same but the issues are different.
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