TIER-1

    Shubham Budhiraja [1] A took an insurance for its truck operating in the state of Bihar and outstation. During the course of insurance period, the truck caught fire on account of short circuit. The Insurance company repudiated the claim on the ground that vehicle was not having national permit as on date of loss because authorization fee was not paid. The State Commission allowed the claim basis the Nitin Khandelwal case and directed to settle the claim on non-standard basis. The Hon’ble NCDRC in appeal set aside the order basis that Nitin Khandelwal does not apply because that was a theft case whereas this is a fire accident case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under [2] :   1.     The authorization fee was required to be paid only when the truck was moving out of State of Bihar as it was registered in the State of Bihar and the truck caught fire on account of short-circuit on 08.06.2014 in the State of Bihar itself and, therefore, insuran...

  Shubham Budhiraja [1] A and B entered into a partnership through an unregistered partnership deed. A filed a suit for recovery against B. The Trial Court held suit to be maintainable but HC reversed the findings. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: [2]   1.     Section 69 is mandatory in character and a suit instituted by a plaintiff in respect of a right which was vested in him by virtue of a contract and entered into in his capacity as a partner of a partnership firm, would be void, if such a firm was unregistered.   2.     Section 69(1) prohibits a suit amongst the partners of an unregistered partnership firm, for the enforcement of a right either arising from a contract or conferred by the Act, unless the suit amongst the partners is in the nature of dissolution of the partnership firm and/or rendition of accounts. Section 69(2) prohibits the institution of a suit by an unregistered firm against third persons for the en...

    Shubham Budhiraja [1]   A and B entered into an agreement regarding supply of kitchen equipment’s. A filed a suit for recovery against B for supplying inferior quality of goods at higher prices. During the suit, A filed an application seeking exemption from undergoing pre-suit mediation on the ground that A is in need of money and any delay would cause irreparable harm to A. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court rejected the A’s application and held as under [2] :   1.     It is well settled that exemption from invoking pre-litigation mediation can be granted only when very urgent reliefs are sought by the Plaintiff and it is demonstrated that unless urgent reliefs are not granted the suit itself would become infructuous.   2.     The Plaintiff has to demonstrate that if the parties are sent to pre-litigation mediation, then the Defendant will take steps which will make the Suit infructuous.   3.   ...

  Shubham Budhiraja [2] Mr. A filed a suit for recovery against Mr. B. The Hon’ble Court directed Mr. B to deposit some amount which he failed to do so. Consequently, the defense of Mr. B was struck off. Mr. B challenged the order on the ground that he is an illiterate person and his advocate never apprised him of the order. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court rejected the appeal and held as under:   (i)              Every litigant who appears in court, needs to be vigilant of his rights and is also expected to be vigilant in the judicial proceedings pending in court. Litigant cannot be permitted to cast the entire blame on the Advocate.   (ii)            It has become a tendency to put entire blame upon the previous Advocate just trying to make it out as if they were totally unaware of the nature or significance of the proceedings. Such an argument therefore...

    Shubham Budhiraja [1] A filed a suit for eviction against B, tenant. While the suit was pending, A died. C, his son, filed application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC, 1908 seeking right to sue as legal representative. The tenant objected to this on the ground that C is not legal heir and his name cannot be substituted. He is an adopted son and there is no adoption deed. The Ld. Trial Court dismissed the tenant’s objection. The Hon’ble High Court affirming the trial court’s order held as under [2] :   1.     Order XXII Rule 3 CPC prescribes procedure in case of death of sole plaintiff or in case of death of one of the several plaintiffs and provides that on such death, the right to sue shall survive to the legal representative of the deceased-plaintiff.   2.     If one goes through the averments made in the eviction petition, it would lay bare that in the petition itself, the landlord had claimed that suit-shop, which is in p...

  Right to property is a valuable right & State is under obligation to make payment immediately without delay [1] Shubham Budhiraja [2] The Land in solan was acquired by notification for giving to Jaypee for mining purpose. The notification was challenged in HP HC. The HC dismisses the writ and held that acquisition for public purpose. Accordingly, the officer visits and determined compensation and paid. The owners filed for supplement amount which was granted by HC but not paid. The Jaypee has scheme of compromise arrangement under section 391 of 1956 act. The Hon'ble supreme court decided as to who has to pay the liability of owners as per scheme.   (i)           The Right to Property in our country is a net of intersecting rights which has been explained in Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Bimal Kumar Shah & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 968 .   (ii)        ...