Filing Of Caveat Under Section 148a Of Civil Procedure Code, 1908
https://www.livelaw.in/articles/filing-of-caveat-under-section-148a-of-civil-procedure-code-242309
https://www.livelaw.in/articles/filing-of-caveat-under-section-148a-of-civil-procedure-code-242309
www.livelaw.in
Filing Of Caveat Under Section 148a Of Civil Procedure Code, 1908
There are prevailing misconceptions among young lawyers and even among the many experienced practitioners pertaining to Caveat. The existing misconception regarding Caveat is the thinking that...
π2
ππΌπΎπΈπ βπββπΌβπ πΈπ½π½πΈπβπ πΉπͺ- βππ₯π¦π£ππ ππ¦π€π₯πππ β’
Filing Of Caveat Under Section 148a Of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 https://www.livelaw.in/articles/filing-of-caveat-under-section-148a-of-civil-procedure-code-242309
π
β‘ Moideen v. Kadeesa Umma and Anr.
In this case, the suit was filed before the Kerala High Court pertaining to the partition and separate possession of the plaintiffβs share. After the passing of the final decree, the respondent filed a caveat under Β§ 148 A of the Code of Civil Procedure praying that they also may be given notice before any order is passed. The Court emphasized that if any application is expected to be made in a suit or proceeding or about to be instituted, any person claiming a right to appear before the court on the hearing of such an application alone may lodge a caveat.
β‘C. Seethaiah v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh
In this case, the appellant petitioner did not serve the copies of the petition on the caveator and he was not at all heard before the interim order of suspension was granted. The ex parte order of suspension deserves to be set aside on this ground. The fact remains that the caveator had no notice of the posting and hearing of the writ petition and miscellaneous petition and had no opportunity to oppose the petitionerβs request for suspension of the impugned order.
The Court highlighted that whenever a caveat is lodged as laid down under sub-sec (1) of sec 148 A sub-sec. (2) makes it obligatory upon the caveator to serve a notice of the caveat by registered post, acknowledgement due on the person by whom the application has been or is expected to be made.
β‘ G.C Siddalingappa v. G.C Veeranna
In this case, the Karnataka High Court highlighted that once a caveat is filed it is a condition precedent for passing an interim order to serve a notice of the application on the caveator who is going to be affected by the interim order unless that condition precedent is satisfied, it is impossible for the court to pass an interim order affecting the caveator. The learned judge further held the court would not absolve from serving a notice of the application on the caveator on the ground that he refused to receive the same. Even if the application was served on the caveator unless the date and the time of hearing of the application was made known to the caveator or his counsel the requirement of serving a notice of the application on the caveator could not have been dispensed with.
β‘ Employees Association v. RBI
In this case, the Court held that by virtue of Sub-section (4) of Section 148 A applicant is duty-bound to furnish a copy of the application made by him along with copies of all the documents which he referred to during the course of the proceeding to the caveator at the caveatorβs expenses.
β‘ State of Karnataka v. NIL
Court pronounced that under Sub-section (2) of section 148 A once a party has admitted as a caveator then he is duty bound to serve a notice of the lodged caveat by registered post on the person or persons by whom an application for an interim order or is expected to be moved against the caveator. However, it is not mandatory. The Court went on to pronounce that where no notice could be served on account of the uncertainty of the person likely to institute a suit, appeal, or other proceedings, the Court may, at its discretion, dispense with the serve of notice of a caveat and permit a party to lodge a caveat without naming the respondent party.
β‘ Pashupati Nath v. Registrar, Coop. Societies
In this case, the Court discussed in length the filing of a caveat. The Court highlighted that a caveat may be lodged after a decree or judgment is pronounced or order is passed. However, in exceptional cases, a caveat may be filed prior to the pronouncement of the judgment or passing of the decree/order as the case may be. Moreover, the Court supplied an emphasis that the provisions of the said section can only be attracted where the caveator is entitled to be heard before any order is made on the application filed or expected to be filed.
Important Case Laws on Caveatβ‘ Moideen v. Kadeesa Umma and Anr.
In this case, the suit was filed before the Kerala High Court pertaining to the partition and separate possession of the plaintiffβs share. After the passing of the final decree, the respondent filed a caveat under Β§ 148 A of the Code of Civil Procedure praying that they also may be given notice before any order is passed. The Court emphasized that if any application is expected to be made in a suit or proceeding or about to be instituted, any person claiming a right to appear before the court on the hearing of such an application alone may lodge a caveat.
β‘C. Seethaiah v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh
In this case, the appellant petitioner did not serve the copies of the petition on the caveator and he was not at all heard before the interim order of suspension was granted. The ex parte order of suspension deserves to be set aside on this ground. The fact remains that the caveator had no notice of the posting and hearing of the writ petition and miscellaneous petition and had no opportunity to oppose the petitionerβs request for suspension of the impugned order.
The Court highlighted that whenever a caveat is lodged as laid down under sub-sec (1) of sec 148 A sub-sec. (2) makes it obligatory upon the caveator to serve a notice of the caveat by registered post, acknowledgement due on the person by whom the application has been or is expected to be made.
β‘ G.C Siddalingappa v. G.C Veeranna
In this case, the Karnataka High Court highlighted that once a caveat is filed it is a condition precedent for passing an interim order to serve a notice of the application on the caveator who is going to be affected by the interim order unless that condition precedent is satisfied, it is impossible for the court to pass an interim order affecting the caveator. The learned judge further held the court would not absolve from serving a notice of the application on the caveator on the ground that he refused to receive the same. Even if the application was served on the caveator unless the date and the time of hearing of the application was made known to the caveator or his counsel the requirement of serving a notice of the application on the caveator could not have been dispensed with.
β‘ Employees Association v. RBI
In this case, the Court held that by virtue of Sub-section (4) of Section 148 A applicant is duty-bound to furnish a copy of the application made by him along with copies of all the documents which he referred to during the course of the proceeding to the caveator at the caveatorβs expenses.
β‘ State of Karnataka v. NIL
Court pronounced that under Sub-section (2) of section 148 A once a party has admitted as a caveator then he is duty bound to serve a notice of the lodged caveat by registered post on the person or persons by whom an application for an interim order or is expected to be moved against the caveator. However, it is not mandatory. The Court went on to pronounce that where no notice could be served on account of the uncertainty of the person likely to institute a suit, appeal, or other proceedings, the Court may, at its discretion, dispense with the serve of notice of a caveat and permit a party to lodge a caveat without naming the respondent party.
β‘ Pashupati Nath v. Registrar, Coop. Societies
In this case, the Court discussed in length the filing of a caveat. The Court highlighted that a caveat may be lodged after a decree or judgment is pronounced or order is passed. However, in exceptional cases, a caveat may be filed prior to the pronouncement of the judgment or passing of the decree/order as the case may be. Moreover, the Court supplied an emphasis that the provisions of the said section can only be attracted where the caveator is entitled to be heard before any order is made on the application filed or expected to be filed.
π₯4π3
π
The Court highlighted two essential conditions for the application of Section 86 IPC-
Firstly, the accused must have been intoxicated without their knowledge or against their will, and;
Secondly, the level of intoxication should be such that it incapacitates them from understanding the nature of the act committed or likely to be committed.
The Court cited the landmark case of Basdev v. State of Pepsu 1956 emphasizing that the accused must not only be intoxicated but also at a level that makes them incapable of understanding the consequences of their actions. The Court had observed βWhere no evidence was led to show that the accused was incapacitated to form requisite intention due to the influence of the drink, the killing of a person would be an offence of murder. Therefore, evidence to prove his incapacity to understand the nature of his action is mandatory to reduce the criminality of the accused.β
The court also referenced The King v. Meade 1909 stating that insanity resulting from drunkenness is a valid defense.
The insanity, whether due to drunkenness or otherwise is a defense in a crime
The evidence of drunkenness which renders the accused incapable of forming any opinion or intention ought to be considered with the surrounding facts and circumstances so as to conclude whether or not he had intention to do the said act
The drunkenness of the accused must be sufficient to render him incapacitated to form any intention to commit the crime
#Question @CurrentLegalGK
β What is the difference between section 85 and 86 of IPC?
Or
β What is the difference between specific intention and general intention?
Nanhe v state of UP 2023The Court highlighted two essential conditions for the application of Section 86 IPC-
Firstly, the accused must have been intoxicated without their knowledge or against their will, and;
Secondly, the level of intoxication should be such that it incapacitates them from understanding the nature of the act committed or likely to be committed.
The Court cited the landmark case of Basdev v. State of Pepsu 1956 emphasizing that the accused must not only be intoxicated but also at a level that makes them incapable of understanding the consequences of their actions. The Court had observed βWhere no evidence was led to show that the accused was incapacitated to form requisite intention due to the influence of the drink, the killing of a person would be an offence of murder. Therefore, evidence to prove his incapacity to understand the nature of his action is mandatory to reduce the criminality of the accused.β
The court also referenced The King v. Meade 1909 stating that insanity resulting from drunkenness is a valid defense.
The insanity, whether due to drunkenness or otherwise is a defense in a crime
The evidence of drunkenness which renders the accused incapable of forming any opinion or intention ought to be considered with the surrounding facts and circumstances so as to conclude whether or not he had intention to do the said act
The drunkenness of the accused must be sufficient to render him incapacitated to form any intention to commit the crime
#Question @CurrentLegalGK
β What is the difference between section 85 and 86 of IPC?
Or
β What is the difference between specific intention and general intention?
π5π₯2π€―1
Prathibha v State of KeralaThe Court relied also upon the Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Palani Goundan v. Emperor (1919), where the accused therein was acquitted for culpable homicide as he hanged the body believing it to be lifeless. The Court further noted that there were no charges framed against the parents for the original act of causing head injury which made the infant unconscious and for causing the disappearance of evidence, or else they could have been convicted for it.
π #Question
'A' beats his wife. She fell down and became unconscious. Believing her to be dead and to save himself from being arrested for murder A hanged her on the fan with rope. Post mortem report disclosed her death from hanging. A is liable for
A. Murder
B. Culpable homicide
C. Attempt to murder
D. Grievous hurt
E. Causing death by negligence
@CurrentLegalGK
π₯2
π
π Whether the Governor is bound to return a bill to the house after withholding assent or whether the Governor can simply say that he was withholding assent.
"If the Governor decides to withhold assent under the substantive part of Article 200, the logical course of action is to pursue the course indicated in the first proviso of remitting the Bill to the state legislature for reconsideration. In other words,
Judgment delivered by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra.
The judgment stated that if such an interpretation is not adopted, then the Governor will be in a position to derail legislative process (virtual veto) by simply saying he was withholding the assent
π€ #Question
Can a Governor send the bill to president if the bill has been re-passed by the legislative assemblyβ
@CurrentLegalGK
The State Of Punjab v Principal Secretary To The Governor Of Punjab 2023π Whether the Governor is bound to return a bill to the house after withholding assent or whether the Governor can simply say that he was withholding assent.
"If the Governor decides to withhold assent under the substantive part of Article 200, the logical course of action is to pursue the course indicated in the first proviso of remitting the Bill to the state legislature for reconsideration. In other words,
the power to withhold assent under the substantive part of Article 200 must be read together with the consequential course of action to be adopted by the Governor under the first proviso,"
Judgment delivered by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra.
The judgment stated that if such an interpretation is not adopted, then the Governor will be in a position to derail legislative process (virtual veto) by simply saying he was withholding the assent
π€ #Question
Can a Governor send the bill to president if the bill has been re-passed by the legislative assemblyβ
@CurrentLegalGK
π3π₯1
π
π‘οΈπͺMurder vs Culpable Homicide
π₯ Whether the proven facts establish the offence of murder 302 IPC, a three-stage approach should be followed.
1. The first stage involves establishing a causal connection between the accused's act and the victim's death. If this connection is established,
2. the court proceeds to the second stage, where it considers whether the act amounts to culpable homicide as defined in Section 299.
3.If not, the offence would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable U/S 304
π₯ 3 degree homicide - 300 then 304 part 1 and then the least 304 part 2
βSubtle difference- likely (ambiguity)
β Important cases-
1. KM Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra
2. Nathan v. State of Madras
3. State of A.P. v. R. Punnayya
4. Vasanth v. State of Maharashtra
5. State of Rajasthan v. Dhool Singh
6. Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2006)
7. Reddy Sampath Kumar v. State
@CurrentLegalGK
Gopi vs State of Kerala 2023π‘οΈπͺMurder vs Culpable Homicide
π₯ Whether the proven facts establish the offence of murder 302 IPC, a three-stage approach should be followed.
1. The first stage involves establishing a causal connection between the accused's act and the victim's death. If this connection is established,
2. the court proceeds to the second stage, where it considers whether the act amounts to culpable homicide as defined in Section 299.
3.If not, the offence would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable U/S 304
π₯ 3 degree homicide - 300 then 304 part 1 and then the least 304 part 2
βSubtle difference- likely (ambiguity)
β Important cases-
1. KM Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra
2. Nathan v. State of Madras
3. State of A.P. v. R. Punnayya
4. Vasanth v. State of Maharashtra
5. State of Rajasthan v. Dhool Singh
6. Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2006)
7. Reddy Sampath Kumar v. State
@CurrentLegalGK
Can you tell us the brief of any of the given case lawβ
π6π₯4π―1
LEGALITY OF THE USE OF ANIMALS FOR RECREATIONAL PURPOSES IN INDIA | National Law
Wildlife protection act 1972
Environment law
School of India University
https://ceerapub.nls.ac.in/legality-of-the-use-of-animals-for-recreational-purposes-in-india/
Wildlife protection act 1972
Environment law
School of India University
https://ceerapub.nls.ac.in/legality-of-the-use-of-animals-for-recreational-purposes-in-india/
National Law School of India University |
LEGALITY OF THE USE OF ANIMALS FOR RECREATIONAL PURPOSES IN INDIA | National Law School of India University
Legality of the Use of Animals for Recreational Purposes in India β Lianne DβSouza, Research Fellow, CEERA Ritika Singh, 1st Year B.A., LL.B., SVKM NMIMS Kirit P Mehta School of Law Introduction The concept of superiority of human beings over other creaturesβ¦
π
Decide the offences committed by Piyush under Indian Penal Code. Also state Atleast one landmark case law of that particular section/s#Question
@CurrentLegalGK
π1
π
Do study these provisions before entering into an internship in courts.
#Guide
@CurrentLegalGK
Most used CPC provisions in courts.Do study these provisions before entering into an internship in courts.
#Guide
@CurrentLegalGK
π3β2π₯1
π¨ββοΈ
1. Vivek narayan sharma v UOI
Demonetisation
2. Kaushal Kishor vs state of UP
Freedom of speech and expression
3. K.C. cinema vs State of J&K
Theatre owner right to frame rules
4. Smt. Smrity Debbarma (D) The LR. vs. Sri Prabha Ranjan Debbarma
Burden of proof in title of property
5.
@CurrentLegalGK
January and february most Important judgments 20231. Vivek narayan sharma v UOI
Demonetisation
2. Kaushal Kishor vs state of UP
Freedom of speech and expression
3. K.C. cinema vs State of J&K
Theatre owner right to frame rules
4. Smt. Smrity Debbarma (D) The LR. vs. Sri Prabha Ranjan Debbarma
Burden of proof in title of property
5.
Naim Ahamed vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
False promise to marry
@CurrentLegalGK
π₯3
β€2π2