TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court upholds Amendments to Civil Procedure Code; addresses implementation challenges, clarifies summons, ADR, plaint rejection, witness examination.</h1> <h3>Salem Advocate Bar Association Versus Union of India (UOI)</h3> The Court upheld the constitutionality of the Amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure, finding them not ultra vires the Constitution. Practical ... - Issues Involved:1. Constitutionality of Amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure.2. Practical difficulties in implementing certain amendments.3. Interpretation of Section 27 regarding summons to defendants.4. Introduction and implications of Section 89 for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).5. Provisions of Section 100A concerning intra-court appeals.6. Amendments to Order 7 Rule 11 regarding rejection of plaints.7. Substitution of Order 18 Rule 4 concerning examination-in-chief of witnesses.8. Deletion of Rule 17A in Order 18.9. Interpretation of Rule 9 in Order 41 regarding the registry of memorandum of appeal.Summary:1. Constitutionality of Amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure:The writ petitions challenged the Amendments made to the Code of Civil Procedure by Amendment Act 46 of 1999 and Amendment Act 22 of 2002. The Court found no provisions to be ultra vires the Constitution. No submissions were made indicating any amendments were without legislative competence or violative of the Constitution.2. Practical Difficulties in Implementing Certain Amendments:Mr. Vaidyanathan highlighted potential practical difficulties and the need for clarifications in implementing some amendments. The Court agreed to address these issues.3. Interpretation of Section 27 Regarding Summons to Defendants:The amendment to Section 27 was interpreted to mean that steps must be taken within thirty days from the date of the institution of the suit to issue summons. The Court clarified that if all required steps are taken within thirty days, compliance with Section 27 is achieved even if the court issues the summons later.4. Introduction and Implications of Section 89 for ADR:Section 89 was introduced to promote settlement of disputes outside the court through arbitration, conciliation, judicial settlement, or mediation. The Court emphasized the need for ADR mechanisms to reduce the burden on courts and suggested forming a Committee to devise a model case management formula and rules for ADR.5. Provisions of Section 100A Concerning Intra-Court Appeals:Section 100A restricts further appeals from judgments and decrees of a Single Judge of a High Court. The Court found no fault with this provision, noting that it aims to prevent unnecessary increase in workload and that High Courts can provide rules for appeals involving substantial value to be heard by a Division Bench.6. Amendments to Order 7 Rule 11 Regarding Rejection of Plaints:Clauses (e) and (f) were added to Order 7 Rule 11, allowing the court to reject plaints not filed in duplicate or failing to comply with Rule 9. The Court stated that these clauses are procedural and courts should give an opportunity to rectify defects before rejecting a plaint.7. Substitution of Order 18 Rule 4 Concerning Examination-in-Chief of Witnesses:Order 18 Rule 4(1) mandates that examination-in-chief be on affidavits. The Court clarified that this applies to witnesses brought without summons. For summoned witnesses, the court can decide whether they should file an affidavit or be present in court. The Court also emphasized the use of electronic media for recording evidence.8. Deletion of Rule 17A in Order 18:The deletion of Rule 17A, which allowed additional evidence, was seen as restoring the status quo ante prior to 1976. The Court noted that this aims to prevent unnecessary prolongation of trials.9. Interpretation of Rule 9 in Order 41 Regarding Registry of Memorandum of Appeal:Order 41 Rule 9 requires a copy of the memorandum of appeal to be presented before the court against whose decree the appeal is filed. The Court clarified that this does not make the appeal defective if not filed under Rule 9, but ensures the decreeing court is aware of the appeal.Conclusion:The Court constituted a Committee to address any practical difficulties and ensure effective implementation of the amendments. The Committee is to file its report within four months, and the petitions will be listed for consideration thereafter. Copies of the judgment are to be sent to all High Courts for necessary action.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
