Legal%20aptitude%20unit%202.pdf

Basics of Code of Civil Procedure and Law of Contract : res sub judice, res judicata, jurisdiction, decree, judgment, orders, appeals, reference, review, revision, interlocutory applications, special suits, inherent powers of the court,...

Basics of Code of Civil Procedure and Law of Contract : res sub judice, res judicata, jurisdiction, decree, judgment, orders, appeals, reference, review, revision, interlocutory applications, special suits, inherent powers of the court, essentials of contract, breach and frustration of contract and quasi contract Unit 2 Res Sub Judice Definition: The principle preventing courts from trying a case that is already under trial in another court. Relevant Provisions: Section 10, Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Conditions for Application: Same parties. Same matter in issue. Previously instituted suit. Competence of the court. Res Judicata Definition: A matter that has been adjudicated by a competent court and therefore may not be pursued further by the same parties. Relevant Provisions: Section 11, CPC. Principle Elements: Final decision. Same parties. Same subject matter. Competent jurisdiction. Exceptions: Fraud, new evidence, etc The doctrine of Res Judicata serves several important objectives in the legal system. These objectives are based on three underlying maxims: Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa: This Latin proverb means “no man should be vexed twice for the same cause”. The basic goal of Res Judicata is to save the parties from having to go through endless litigation over the same problem. Once an issue has been determined definitively by a competent court, the same parties should not be permitted to re-litigate the same dispute. Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium: This Latin maxim means “it is in the best interests of the State to put an end to litigation”. The Res Judicata concept enhances judicial efficiency and the finality of rulings. It guarantees that disagreements are settled definitively, lowering the pressure on the legal system and eliminating unnecessary and time-consuming litigation. Res judicata pro veritate occipitur: This Latin proverb translates as “a matter adjudged is accepted as correct”. Res Judicata creates a presumption of validity and finality for decisions made by competent courts. The court’s judgements are said to be founded on a thorough assessment of the facts and law, and they should not be readily reversed. Jurisdiction Definition: The authority granted to a legal body to administer justice within a defined field of responsibility. Types of Jurisdiction: Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Territorial Jurisdiction. Pecuniary Jurisdiction. Original and Appellate Jurisdiction. Relevant Provisions: Section 9, CPC (Civil Courts); Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) for criminal courts. Decree Definition: A formal expression of adjudication by which the court conclusively determines the rights of parties. Relevant Provisions: Sections 2(2), 2(9), and 33, CPC. Types: Preliminary Decree. Final Decree. Ex parte Decree. Judgment Definition: The statement given by the judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Relevant Provisions: Section 2(9), CPC; Order 20, CPC. Contents: Facts, legal reasoning, final order. Orders Definition: Formal expression of a court’s decision that does not amount to a decree. Relevant Provisions: Sections 2(14), CPC; Order 39, CPC. Types: Interim, final orders, etc Appeals Definition: Application to a higher court for the reversal of the decision of a lower court. Relevant Provisions: Sections 96 to 112, CPC; Sections 372 to 394, CrPC. Types: First Appeal. Second Appeal. Appeal by Special Leave (Article 136 of the Constitution). Reference, Review, Revision Reference: Section 113, CPC – Lower court refers a matter to a higher court. Review: Section 114, CPC; Order 47, CPC – Re-examination by the same court. Revision: Sections 115, CPC; 397 to 401, CrPC – Supervisory jurisdiction of higher courts. Interlocutory Applications Definition: Applications made during the course of a suit or proceeding. Relevant Provisions: Order 39 (Injunctions), Order 40 (Receivers), CPC. Types: Interim relief, temporary injunctions, etc Special Suits Types: Partition Suits. Mortgage Suits. Specific Performance Suits. Suits by or against the Government. Relevant Provisions: CPC, Specific Relief Act, Transfer of Property Act. Inherent Powers of the Court Definition: Powers possessed by a court not derived from statutory provisions but inherent in its nature. Relevant Provisions: Section 151, CPC. Scope: Prevent abuse of process, ends of justice. Essentials of Contract Elements: Offer and Acceptance. Intention to Create Legal Relations. Lawful Consideration. Capacity of Parties. Free Consent. Lawful Object. Relevant Provisions: Sections 2 to 30, Indian Contract Act, 1872. Breach and Frustration of Contract Breach: Sections 73 to 75, Indian Contract Act – Remedies for breach. Frustration: Section 56, Indian Contract Act – Contract becomes impossible to perform. Quasi-Contract Definition: Obligations that arise not from agreement but from justice and equity. Relevant Provisions: Sections 68 to 72, Indian Contract Act. Examples: Supply of necessaries, payment by an interested person. The concept of a quasi-contract comes from Roman law, where it was a central doctrine. The Latin statement "Nemo debet locupletari ex aliena iactura" is the basis for quasi-contract laws, and it means "no one should grow rich out of another person's loss" Example For example, if Peter delivers a basket of fruit to John's house by mistake instead of Oliver's, John is obligated to pay for the fruit basket even though there's no contract between Peter and John. Quasi Contract vs. Contract Only Implied in Law Can Be Express or Implied Ordered by a Judge Initiated by Party Agreement No Contract Exists A Legal Contract Exists Res Sub Judice Case: Pukhraj D. Jain v. G. GopalakrishnaCitation: AIR 2004 SC 3504 Principle: The Supreme Court ruled that for the application of Section 10 CPC, the previously instituted suit must be pending in a competent court. Res Judicata Case: Daryao v. State of U.P. Citation: AIR 1961 SC 1457 Principle: The Supreme Court held that the principle of res judicata applies to writ petitions filed under Article 32 or Article 226 of the Constitution. Jurisdiction Case: Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India Citation: (2004) 6 SCC 254 Principle: The Supreme Court held that the cause of action determines the jurisdiction of a court and that a writ petition can be filed where the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. Decree Case: Venkata Reddy v. Pethi Reddy Citation: AIR 1963 SC 992 Principle: The court clarified that a preliminary decree is also a decree and is appealable. Judgment Case: Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan Citation: AIR 1999 SC 3381 Principle: The Supreme Court emphasized that a judgment must clearly state the reasons for the decision and should not be cryptic. Orders Case: Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society v. Swaraj Developers Citation: (2003) 6 SCC 659 Principle: The Supreme Court differentiated between orders that amount to decrees and those that do not. Appeals Case: Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. Union of India Citation: AIR 1979 SC 798 Principle: The Supreme Court held that the right to appeal is a substantive right and can only be exercised if expressly provided by statute. Reference, Review, Revision Reference: Case: Sir Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons, Ltd. v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co., Ltd. Citation: AIR 1962 SC 1314 Principle: Clarified when a reference to a High Court is necessary. Review: Case: Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa Citation: AIR 2000 SC 85 Principle: The court held that review is permissible only when there is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. Revision: Case: Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar v. Krishnaji Dattatreya Bapat Citation: AIR 1970 SC 1 Principle: The court discussed the scope and limitations of revision under Section 115 CPC. Interlocutory Applications Case: M. Gurudas v. Rasaranjan Citation: AIR 2006 SC 3275 Principle: The Supreme Court discussed the principles guiding the grant of interlocutory injunctions, emphasizing the need for a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. Special Suits Partition Suits: Case: Komalavalli Ammal v. T. Ramchandra Row Citation: AIR 1980 SC 1730 Mortgage Suits: Case: P. L. Bapuswami v. N. Pattay Gounder Citation: AIR 1966 SC 902 Specific Performance Suits: Case: Lachman Das v. Jagat Ram Citation: AIR 2007 SC 208 Suits by or Against the Government: Case: State of Bihar v. Kripalu Shankar Citation: AIR 1987 SC 1554 Inherent Powers of the Court Case: Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal Citation: AIR 1962 SC 527 Principle: The Supreme Court upheld the inherent powers of the court under Section 151 CPC, affirming the court's ability to pass orders for the ends of justice. Here are some examples of how Section 151 of the CPC can be applied: Correction of Errors: The court can review its own orders and correct any mistakes. Provisional Measures: It can grant temporary injunctions when a case doesn’t fall under the provisions of Order 39, or it can set aside an ‘ex parte’ order. iSettng Aside Illegal Orders: The court has the power to nullify orders that were made unlawfully or without jurisdiction. Consideration of Subsequent Events: It can take into account events that occurred after a case was initiated. Privacy of Proceedings: The court can decide to conduct a trial ‘in camera’ (in private) or protect the confidentiality of its proceedings. Erasing Remarks: It can remove unfavorable remarks made against a judge. Improving a Suit: The court can amend a lawsuit and re-hear it on its merits or re-examine its previous orders. In essence, Section 151 grants the court the flexibility to take actions that may not be explicitly outlined in the law but are necessary to ensure justice is served and the legal process is not misused Essentials of Contract Case: Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. Citation: 1 QB 256 (UK) Principle: This case established important principles of offer, acceptance, and intention to create legal relations. Indian Case: Balfour v. Balfour (1921) Principle: The court ruled on the absence of legal intent in domestic agreements. Breach and Frustration of Contract Breach: Case: Hadley v. Baxendale Citation: EWHC J70 (UK) Principle: Established the rule for consequential damages. Frustration: Case: Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur & Co. Citation: AIR 1954 SC 44 Principle: The Supreme Court held that frustration occurs when a contract becomes impossible to perform, not merely inconvenient. Quasi-Contract Case: State of West Bengal v. B.K. Mondal & Sons Citation: AIR 1962 SC 779 Principle: The Supreme Court held that the government was liable to pay for goods supplied, even though there was no formal contract, as it was a quasi-contractual obligation.