Total Pageviews

Sunday, February 7, 2010

  
 
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955,

Section 13 -Family Courts Act, Sections 7 and 10 - Civil Procedure Code, Section 151 

Following  Shardu v. Dharmpal, 2003(2) RCR(CMl) 795 :1(2003)4 SCC 493/.

A three-Judge Bench decision of this Court has taken into consideration the power of the court to allow such application for medical examination of a party in a matrimonial proceeding and observed as under :-
"In certain cases medical examination by the experts in the field may not only be found to be leading to the truth of the matter but may also lead to removal of misunderstanding between the parties. It may being the parties to terms."
Therefore held Court can order Medical examination in exercise inherent power under Section 151 CPC to do complete justice, though no such power is provided under Hindu Marriage Act.    
I
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Sections 31(3) and 34(4)

Arbitration award - Reasoned award

The requirement of reasons in support of the award under Section 31(3) is not an empty formality. It guarantees fair and legitimate consideration of the controversy by the arbitral tribunal. It is true that arbitral tribunal is not expected to write judgment like a court nor it is expected to give elaborate and detailed reasons in support of its findings but mere noticing the submissions of the parties or reference to documents is no substitute for reasons which the arbitral tribunal is obliged to give. Howsoever brief these may be, reasons must be indicated in the award as that would reflect thought process leading to a particular conclusion. To satisfy the requirement of Section 3 1(3), the reasons must be stated by the arbitral tribunal upon which the award is based; want of reasons would make such award legally thawed, in what we have discussed above, it cannot be said that High Court was wrong in observing that no reasons have been assigned by the arbitral tribunal as to whether the period of completion extended by the employer for 18-1/2 months was due to reasons not attributable to the claimant. However, in our view, the High Court ought to have given the arbitral tribunal an opportunity to give reasons. This course is available under Section 34(4) of the Act 
Matter remitted to arbitral tribunal.
 
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 9, Rule 4 - Dismissal on account of non-prosecution as counsel didi not appear. Restoration application filed . The dismissal was because counsel had been designated as Addl A G so could not appear for petitioner

 Held,

(i) Perusal of record reveals that no delay was caused by petitioner in filing application for restoration;

(ii) Further, a petitioner had been diligently prosecuting the litigation since 1982.

(iii) It would be improper to punish petitioner for non-appearance of his counsel.
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 17 - Jurisdiction- Cause of action - Fire at Ambala godown--

In our opinion, no part of the cause of action arose at Chandigarh. It is well settled that the expression 'cause of action' means that bundle of facts which gives rise to a right or liability. In the present case admittedly the fire broke out in the godown of the appellant at Ambala. The insurance policy was also taken at Ambala and the claim for compensation was also made at Ambala. Thus no part of the cause of action arose in Chandigarh.
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 17(2) - Term "Branch Office" meaning - In our opinion, the expression 'branch office' in the amended Section 17(2) would mean the branch office where the cause of action has arisen. No doubt this would be departing from the plain and literal words of Section 17(2)(b) of the Act but such departure is sometimes necessary (as it is in this case) to avoid absurdity.  
 *****