Blog - Page 25 of 32 - The Law Literates

27Apr, 2023

Civil courts cannot intervene in matters related to SARFAESI Act which are under the purview of DRT or DRAT: Supreme Court

Click below to read the judgement

Civil courts cannot intervene in matters related to SARFAESI Act which are under the purview of DRT or DRAT SC

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Punjab and Sind Bank

Frontline Corporation Ltd.

B.R. GAVAI AND ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2924 OF 2023

APRIL 18, 2023

FEMA, BANKING & INSURANCE : Jurisdiction of civil court is barred in respect of matters which a DRT or an Appellate Tribunal is empowered to determine in respect of any action taken ‘or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred under SARFAESI Act’ – Prohibition covers even matters which may be taken cognizance of by DRT though no measure in that direction has so far been taken under subsection (4) of Section 13 – Any matter in respect of which an action may be taken even later on, civil court shall have no jurisdiction to entertain any proceeding thereof – To a very limited extent jurisdiction of civil court can also be invoked, where for example, action of secured creditor is alleged to be fraudulent or his claim may be so absurd and untenable which may not require any probe whatsoever or to say precisely to extent the scope is permissible to bring an action in civil court in cases of English mortgages.

27Apr, 2023

Moratorium under IBC applies only to CD, not directors, Natural persons would still be liable under Chapter XVII of NI Act

Click below to read the judgement

Moratorium under IBC applies only to CD, not directors, Natural persons would still be liable under Chapter XVII of NI Act

FEMA, BANKING & INSURANCE : Moratorium provision contained under section 14 (1) of IBC would apply only to a corporate debtor and natural persons i.e. directors of corporate debtor mentioned in section 141 of N.I. Act would continue to be statutorily liable under Chapter XVII of N.I. Act
■■■

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PVS Memorial Hospital
v.
Dr. Satheesh Iype
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
CRL. MC NO. 8157 OF 2022
JANUARY 5, 2023

Section 141, read with section 138, of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Offence by Companies – Whether moratorium provision contained under section 14(1) of IBC would apply only to a corporate debtor, natural persons mentioned in section 141 would continue to be statutorily liable under Chapter XVII of N.I. Act – Held, yes – Whether vicarious liability under sub-section (2) to section 141 can arise because of director, manager, secretary, or other officer’s personal conduct, functional or transactional role, notwithstanding that person was not in overall control of day-to-day business of company when offence was committed – Held, yes – Whether thus, prosecution against corporate debtor for offence punishable under section 138 would stand deferred subject to outcome of moratorium proceedings, under section 14 of IBC, while allowing continuance of prosecution against directors/natural persons – Held, yes [Paras 10 and 13]

FACTS

■ The complainant lodged complaint under section 142 before the Magistrate Court alleging that the accused company and its directors committed offence punishable under section 138 since the cheque jointly issued by accused of Rs. 37,20,000/- got dishonoured for want of funds, when the cheque was presented for collection.
■ While seeking quashment of complaint, accused corporate debtor and its directors in instant petition placed reliance on a three Bench decision of the Apex Court [(2021) 6 SCC 258], P.Mohanraj v. Shah Brothers Ispat (P.) Ltd. [2021] 125 taxmann.com 39/167 SCL 327 to contend that, no prosecution against the accused and its Directors could be possible after moratorium issued in terms of section 14(1). It was specifically pointed out that, moratorium order under section 14(1) had been passed in relation to accused. Therefore, no prosecution against the accused was permissible.
■ Secondly, it was argued that, in order to prosecute the Directors of a company, there would be narration in the complaint with regard to their specific roles in the affairs of the company and otherwise the prosecution under the principles of vicarious liability could not be proceeded.

HELD

■ The legal position emerges is that moratorium provision contained in sec.14 (1) would apply only to corporate debtor and the non-corporate debtor/debtors mentioned in section 141, continuing to be statutorily liable under Chapter XVII of the N.I Act [Para 9].
■ In view of the legal position settled by the Three Bench of the Apex Court, in P.Mohanraj v. Shah Brothers Ispat (P.) Ltd. [2021] 125 taxmann.com 39/167 SCL 327, holding the view that, moratorium provision contained under section 14(1) would apply only to a corporate debtor and the natural persons mentioned in section 141 continuing to be statutorily liable under Chapter XVII of the N.I.Act. Therefore, the complaint against the accused cannot be quashed, simply on the ground of moratorium order. However, the prosecution against the accused being corporate debtor can be kept in abeyance till finalization of the moratorium proceedings, while allowing prosecution against natural person i.e. petitioners-directors of accused company. [Para 10]
■ The legal position is not in dispute and the same is as held in Dilip Hariramani v. Bank of Baroda [2022] 138 taxmann.com 186/172 SCL 281 (SC). Thus, as regards to the application of vicarious liability in terms of criminal law as provided under section 141 of the N.I. Act is concerned, the same cannot be fastened because of the civil liability. Vicarious liability under sub-section (1) to section 141 can be pinned when the person is in overall control of the day-to-day business of the company or firm. Vicarious liability under sub-section (2) to section 141 can arise because of the director, manager, secretary, or other officer’s personal conduct, functional or transactional role, notwithstanding that the person was not in overall control of the day-to-day business of the company when the offence was committed. Vicarious liability under sub-section (2) is attracted when the offence is committed with the consent, connivance, or is attributable to the neglect on the part of a director, manager, secretary, or other officer of the company. [Para 13]
■ Thus, the necessary ingredients as has been held in Dilip Hariramani’s case could be gathered from the averments in the complaint and the rest of the contentions raised by the accused shall be matter of evidence, during trial. [Para 16]
■ To upshot, it is held that, the twin contentions raised by the petitioners to quash complaint, found to be not sustainable. However, the prosecution against the accused company the corporate debtor shall stand deferred subject to the outcome of moratorium proceedings, while allowing continuance of prosecution against director of accused the non-corporate debtors/natural persons. Accordingly, instant petition stands disposed of. [Para 17]

CASE REVIEW

Dilip Hariramani v. Bank of Baroda [2022] 138 186/172 SCL 281 (SC) (para 16) and P.Mohanraj v. Shah Brothers Ispat (P.) Ltd. [2021] 125 39/167 SCL 327 (SC) (para 10) followed.

CASES REFERRED TO

P.Mohanraj v. Shah Brothers Ispat (P.) Ltd. [2021] 39/167 SCL 327 (SC) (para 6), Lalankumar Singh v. State of Maharashtra 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1383 (para 8), Dilip Hariramani v. Bank of Baroda [2022] 186/172 SCL 281 (SC) (para 8) and Ashoke Mal Bafna v. Upper India Steel Mfg. & Engg. Co. Ltd. [Criminal Appeal No. 529 of 2017, dated 6-3-2017] (para 12).
V. Krishna Menon, J. Surya and Prinsun Philip for the Petitioner. Thomas T. Varghese and G. Sudheer for the Respondent.

27Apr, 2023

Reminder/New identity cards for enrolled advocates In Bar council of Delhi

This is to inform that the bar council of delhi in the meeting dated 6.4.2023 has decided that the new identity cards for enrolled advocates shall be made afresh . All the advocates shall apply afresh with the attested copy of aadhaar card, copy of enrollment certificate and COP (certificate of practice),where applicable. The permanent identity card shall be valid for 10 years and provisional identity card shall be valid for two years . One month time is being granted to all the advocates to apply afresh ,for which no charges shall be taken . Identity cards shall be issued free of cost to those who apply within one month, i.e., from 16.04.2023 to 31.05.2023.
Please deposit form your nearest Bar council window counter of every court of delhi/Bar council of delhi

19Mar, 2023

Article 19 of the Constitution of India/ Famous Case Law/Consequences/Blog

Article 19 of the Constitution of India provides six fundamental rights to citizens, which are:

Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression: This means that every citizen has the right to express his or her opinions freely without fear of censorship or punishment by the government.
Right to assemble peaceably and without arms: This means that every citizen has the right to organize and participate in peaceful assemblies or protests.
Right to form associations or unions: This means that every citizen has the right to form and join associations, unions, or political parties.
Right to move freely throughout the territory of India: This means that every citizen has the right to move freely within the country, and to live and work in any part of India.
Right to reside and settle in any part of India: This means that every citizen has the right to reside and settle in any part of India.
Right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business: This means that every citizen has the right to practice any profession, carry on any occupation, trade or business without any discrimination.

Article 19 has played a significant role in protecting the fundamental rights of citizens and ensuring that they have the freedom to express themselves, associate with others, move freely, and pursue their chosen professions or occupations.

Famous case laws related to Article 19 of the Constitution of India include:

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): This case established the doctrine of ‘due process of law’ which meant that any law that restricted a fundamental right must be just, fair, and reasonable. The case held that the right to travel abroad was a fundamental right and could not be taken away without following the due process of law.
S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram (1989): This case held that the right to freedom of speech and expression includes the right to express unpopular or dissenting views. The case held that any restriction on freedom of speech and expression must be narrowly tailored to achieve a specific objective and must not be vague or overbroad.
State of Madras v. V.G. Row (1952): This case held that any law that restricts the freedom of speech and expression must be reasonable and in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India. The case held that the right to freedom of speech and expression is not an absolute right and can be restricted by the State if it poses a threat to public order or morality.

These landmark cases have been instrumental in shaping the interpretation of Article 19 of the Constitution of India and have set the framework for the protection of fundamental rights in the country.

Consequences of Article 19

The consequences of Article 19 are that citizens have the freedom to exercise their rights without fear of government intervention, and that the government must protect these rights. The government can only restrict these rights under certain circumstances, such as when it is necessary for public order, morality, and security of the State.

17Mar, 2023

Advocates welfare circular for fresh registration

8Mar, 2023

Wish You Happy Holi/08/03/2023/Wish everyone form our Legal Team

Wish You Happy Holi. 8th March 2023

Holi is a major festival in India and is celebrated with great enthusiasm and zeal across the country. It is a festival of colors and is celebrated on the full moon day in the Hindu month of Phalguna, which usually falls in February or March. Here are some of the reasons why Holi is so important in India:

Celebrates the victory of good over evil: The festival of Holi celebrates the victory of good over evil. According to Hindu mythology, the festival commemorates the defeat of the demon king Hiranyakashipu by Lord Vishnu, who took the form of Narasimha (a half-human, half-lion figure) to kill the demon king. It is also believed to be a celebration of the devotion and love of Prahlada, the son of the demon king, who was a devotee of Lord Vishnu.
Promotes unity and brotherhood: Holi is a festival that brings people together, irrespective of their caste, creed, or religion. It is a time when people forget their differences and come together to celebrate and enjoy the festival. It is also a time to forgive and forget, as people throw colors at each other and bury the hatchet.
Marks the arrival of spring: Holi is celebrated at the onset of spring, which is a time of renewal and rejuvenation. The festival is a celebration of new beginnings, and people come out of their homes to enjoy the warmth and vibrancy of the season.
Joyful and fun-filled festival: Holi is a festival of joy and happiness. People dance to the beats of dhol and sing Holi songs. They also smear each other with colors and drench each other with water, which makes the festival a lot of fun.
Traditional festival: Holi is a traditional festival that has been celebrated in India for centuries. It is deeply rooted in Indian culture and is an important part of the country’s heritage.

Overall, Holi is an important festival in India that celebrates the triumph of good over evil, promotes unity and brotherhood, marks the arrival of spring, and is a fun-filled and joyful festival. It is a time when people come together to forget their differences and celebrate the rich cultural heritage of India.

Thank you very much! On behalf of the The Law Literates family , we wish everyone a very happy and colorful Holi! May this festival bring joy, happiness, and togetherness to you and your loved ones.

Team The Law Literates

आपका बहुत-बहुत धन्यवाद!

8Mar, 2023

Article 21: “Protection of Life and Personal Liberty/Consequences/Blogs

Article 21: “Protection of Life and Personal Liberty: No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” This fundamental right is available to every person, citizens and foreigners alike.

Article 21 is a provision of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which states:

“(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of their country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in their country.

(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.”

This article recognizes the importance of political participation and equal access to public services for all individuals, regardless of their race, gender, or any other personal characteristics. It emphasizes the need for democratic processes, such as free and fair elections, to ensure that the government is accountable to the will of the people. Overall, Article 21 promotes the principles of democracy and human rights.

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the protection of life and personal liberty to every citizen of India. This fundamental right is considered one of the most important rights as it ensures that no person shall be deprived of their life or personal liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law.

The scope of Article 21 is broad and encompasses various aspects of human life. It includes the right to live with human dignity, the right to livelihood, the right to health, the right to privacy, the right to personal autonomy, and the right to a pollution-free environment. The Supreme Court of India has interpreted Article 21 in various landmark judgments to expand its scope and ensure that the fundamental right is protected in all aspects.

Article 21 of the Constitution of India is one of the most fundamental and significant articles, which provides protection to the life and personal liberty of every person in India. The article states:

“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.”

Here are some of the consequences of Article 21 in India:

Right to life: Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to life to every person. This right is not only about the physical existence of an individual, but it also includes the right to a dignified life, health, and basic necessities.
Right to personal liberty: The right to personal liberty is another important consequence of Article 21. This right provides protection against arbitrary arrest and detention.
Right to fair trial: Article 21 ensures that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. This means that every person is entitled to a fair trial, and no one can be punished without being given an opportunity to defend himself.
Protection against torture and inhumane treatment: Article 21 also provides protection against torture and inhumane treatment. The Supreme Court of India has interpreted the right to life and personal liberty as including the right to live with dignity and free from any form of torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.
Right to privacy: The Supreme Court of India has held that the right to privacy is a part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. This means that every person has the right to be left alone and to have control over his or her personal information.
Right to education: The Supreme Court of India has held that the right to education is also a part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. This means that every person has the right to education and the government has a duty to provide free and compulsory education to all children up to the age of 14 years.

Overall, Article 21 is a critical provision of the Indian Constitution that ensures protection to the fundamental rights of every person in India.

Some of the important judgments by the Supreme Court of India on Article 21 are:

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): This case expanded the scope of Article 21 by stating that the right to life includes the right to travel abroad.
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985): In this case, the Supreme Court held that the right to livelihood is a part of the right to life under Article 21.

People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982): This case recognized the right to health as a fundamental right under Article 21.

K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017): This case recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21.

As of my knowledge cutoff of September 2021, here are some recent judgements by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on Article 21 of the Indian Constitution which deals with fundamental rights:

Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018): The Supreme Court in this landmark judgement decriminalized consensual homosexual acts between adults. The Court held that the right to sexuality and sexual orientation is an integral part of the right to privacy under Article 21.
KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017): In this case, the Supreme Court declared the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21. The Court held that the right to privacy is an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty.
Common Cause v. Union of India (2018): The Supreme Court in this case recognized the right to die with dignity as a fundamental right under Article 21. The Court allowed passive euthanasia under strict guidelines.

7Mar, 2023

Section 115 CPC Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, Section 5(4)/Gauhati High Court

GAUHATI HIGH COURT

UMANGKHINI vs LUNA CRP 61/21 30/05/21 [ DEVASHI JJ

_*• Section 115 CPC Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, Section 5(4) Eviction Petitioner after entering into lease agreement, started business in tenanted premises – Alleged that petitioner after few weeks tenancy, petitioner started liquor selling business Alleged that rent was not paid to respondent as per agreed terms and conditions Petitioner contends that monthly rent in respect to suit premises was being regularly paid to respondent mostly through court – It is no longer res-integra that it is burden of tenant to prove that tenant is not defaulter in payment of rent – Tenant has to prove that upon refusal of respondent to accept rent, tenant has deposited rent in court – There has been no evidence adduced by petitioner to prove same Directing petitioner to vacate suit premises within 6 months Petition dismissed. [Paras]
12. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and given my anxious consideration to the matter. It appears from the records that the plaintiff has specifically stated in her plaint that from October, 2015 onwards till the date of filing of the suit, rent was not paid to the plaintiff as per the agreed terms and conditions. In the written statement, the stand of the defendant was that the monthly rent in respect to the suit premises was being regularly paid to the plaintiff mostly through the court under Section 5 (4) of the Act of 1972 whenever the plaintiff refused to accept it in respect to the suit premises. It is no longer res-integra that it is the burden of the tenant to prove that the tenant is not a defaulter in payment of rent. Further to that, it is also well established that in order to make the deposit in terms with Section 5 (4) of the Act of 1972, the tenant has to prove that upon refusal of the landlord to accept the rent, the tenant has deposited the rent in the court in the manner stipulated under Section 5 (4) of Act of 1972. As there has been no evidence adduced by the defendant to prove the same that the mandate of Section 5 (4) of the Act of 1972 has been duly complied with, this court is in agreement with the concurrent finding of the facts arrived at by both the courts below and being a revisional court exercising jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the concurrent finding of facts arrived at by both the courts below do not show any error in jurisdiction by the courts below in arriving at the decision for which the instant application stands dismissed thereby affirming the judgment and decree dated 06.09.2021 passed by the Court of the Civil Judge, Sivasagar in Title Suit No. 08/2020.

13. Taking into consideration that the defendant has been carrying on her business of a Dhaba since long and Mr. A. R. Shome, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant submits that if the defendant is immediately evicted from the suit premises, serious irretrievable injury would be caused to her as it would be very difficult to immediately find an alternative location to carry out of the business, this Court deems it just and reasonable to grant the defendant 6 (six) months of time to vacate the suit premises provided the defendant submits an undertaking before the trial court within 15.06.2022 to the effect that the defendant shall vacate the suit premises within a period of 6 (six) months from the date of the instant judgement, i.e., on or before 30.11.2022. Failure to submit the undertaking within the said period, the plaintiff shall be entitled to initiate execution application for evicting the defendant.
14. It is clarified that during this period of 6 (six) months, ending 30.11.2022, the defendant shall continue to make payment of the amount of rent to which the plaintiff is entitled to per month in the form of compensation to the plaintiff.
15. It is further observed that granting of extension of the period of 6 (six) months subject to filing the undertaking as aforesaid and the payment of compensation during this period of 6 (six) months shall not create any right or interest in favour of the defendant in respect to the suit premises. It is also clarified that during this period, the defendant shall remain in possession of the suit premises as the custodian of the plaintiff and shall not do any act or acts which may affect the rights of the plaintiff over the suit premises in any manner whatsoever.

clock here for read the judgment

display_pdf – 2023-03-02T172628.099

5Mar, 2023

Section 125 CRPC Maintenance/Increased maintenance/Supreme Court of India

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

ANJU vs DEEPAK CRL-A 1693/22 28/09/22 [ DINESH JJ

• Section 125 CRPC Maintenance for wife and children Held, conduct of Respondent in not appearing before the Family Court despite issuance of warrants, clearly established his disregard for law and for his own family As his evidence was closed, allegations made by wife in her evidence remained unchallenged Wife clearly stated as to how harassment and cruelty as also neglect by husband led her to leave her matrimonial home with her children Documentary evidence led by her proved husband’s demand for money from her father – Thus, no reason for Family Court to disbelieve her version and believe oral submissions made by respondent which were not supported by evidence – Husband even questioned her chastity without any supporting evidence – Though Family Court rejected his application for DNA test and granted maintenance to son, it mis-directed itself by not granting maintenance to wife – Therefore, High Court erred in casually approving Family Court’s order without giving any reasons. [Paras 11 and 12]

11) it has been stated that it is a piece of social legislation which provides for a summary and speedy relief by way of maintenance to a wife who is unable to maintain herself and her children”. disregarded the aforesaid settled legal position, but had proceeded with the proceedings in absolutely pervert manner. The very fact that the right of the respondent to cross-examine the witnesses of the appellant-original applicant was closed, as he had failed to appear before the Family Court despite the issuance of warrants, clearly established that he had no regards for his own family nor had any regards for the Court or for the law. The allegations made by the appellant-wife in her evidence before the Court had remained unchallenged and, therefore, there was no reason for the Family Court to disbelieve her version, and to believe the oral submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent which had no basis. In absence of any evidence on record adduced by the respondent disputing the evidence adduced by the appellant, the Family Court could not have passed the order believing the oral submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent. She had clearly stated as to how she was harassed and subjected to cruelty by the respondent, which had constrained her to leave the matrimonial home along with her children, and as to how the respondent had failed and neglected to maintain her and her children. She had also proved by producing the documentary evidence that her father had paid money to the respondent from time to time to help the respondent for his business. Even if the allegations of demand of dowry by the respondent were not believed, there was enough evidence to believe that money was being paid to the respondent by the father of the appellant-wife, which substantiated her allegation that the
respondent was demanding money from her father and was subjecting her to harassment. The errant respondent had also gone to the extent of questioning her chastity alleging that Rachit was not his biological son. There was nothing on record to substantiate his such baseless allegations. His application for DNA test was also rejected by the Family Court. Of course, the Family Court granted the Maintenance petition so far as the appellant no.2-son was concerned, nonetheless had thoroughly mis-directed itself by not granting the maintenance to the appellant-wife.

12) Such an erroneous and perverse order of Family Court was unfortunately confirmed by the High Court by passing a very perfunctory impugned order. The High Court, without assigning any reasons, passed the impugned order in a very casual manner. This Court would have remanded the matter back to the High Court for considering it afresh, however considering the fact that the matter has been pending before this Court since the last four years, and remanding it back would further delay the proceedings, this Court deemed it proper to pass this order.

click here for read the judgment

Judgement_28-Sep-2022 ANJU GARG & ANR. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS DEEPAK KUMAR GARG

3Mar, 2023

What Is Order 7 Rule 11 CPC ? When plaint can be rejected ?/Blogs/Civil Laws

The presentation of a plaint, i.e. the pleading of the plaintiff in a suit; marks the institution of a civil suit. The Civil Procedure Code, 1908, provides for the remedy of rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11, on certain specifically states grounds. Order VII Rule 11 provides: “Court shall reject a plaint.

In Indian law, the rejection of a plaint refers to the dismissal of a case at its initial stage, i.e., before it goes to trial. The court can reject a plaint if it does not comply with the procedural requirements or if it fails to disclose a cause of action.

The main provisions dealing with the rejection of plaint is Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. These provisions provide the grounds for rejecting a plaint and the procedure for doing so.

the plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:

a) If it does not disclose a cause of action;

b) If the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so;

c) If the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;

d) If the plaint is not filed in the proper court;

e) If the suit is instituted against the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the court may reject the plaint if it appears from the statement in the plaint that the suit is barred by any law.

One of the important case laws regarding the rejection of plaint is the case of Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Assistant Charity Commissioner. In this case, the Supreme Court held that a plaint can be rejected only if the averments in the plaint, taken as a whole, do not disclose a cause of action. The court further observed that the test to determine whether a cause of action has been disclosed is whether, if the allegations made in the plaint are proved, the plaintiff would be entitled to the relief claimed.
In another landmark case, Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that the rejection of a plaint is a drastic action and should be resorted to only in clear cases where the plaint is vexatious, meritless, or instituted with an ulterior motive. The court further observed that the power to reject a plaint should be exercised cautiously and sparingly.
Surinder Singh Deswal v. Virender Gandhi: In this case, the Delhi High Court held that the power to reject a plaint is discretionary and should be exercised in accordance with the principles of natural justice and fairness. The court also noted that the plaintiff should be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard before the plaint is rejected.
Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh v. Sita Ram Thakur: In this case, the Patna High Court held that the rejection of a plaint on the ground of non-payment of court fees should be a rare and exceptional event, and should be done only when it is clear that the plaintiff has deliberately avoided paying the requisite fees. The court also observed that the plaintiff should be given an opportunity to rectify any defects in the plaint before it is rejected.

In conclusion, the rejection of plaint in Indian law is a crucial step in ensuring that only valid and legitimate cases are brought to trial. However, this power should be exercised judiciously and with caution, keeping in mind the principles of natural justice and fairness.

it’s my opinion