SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(Online)(SC) 503

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
ASHOK KUMAR KALRA – Appellant
Versus
WING CDR SURENDRA AGNIHOTRI – Respondent


JUDGMENT

N.V. RAMANA, J.

1. Questions about procedural justice are remarkably persistent and usual in the life of Common Law Courts. However, achieving a perfect procedural system may be feasible or affordable, rather more manageable standards of meaningful participation needs to be aspired while balancing cost, time and accuracy at the same time.

Signature Not Verified

2. The present reference placed before us arises out of the order Digitaly signed by SATISH KUMAR YADAV Date: 2019.11.19

17:34:23 IST Reason:

dated 10.09.2018 passed by a two-Judge Bench of this Court, wherein clarification has been sought as to the interpretation of Order VIII Rule 6A of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as “the CPC”), regarding the filing of counter-claim by a defendant in a suit. The reference order dated 10.09.2018 is extracted below:

“.........

The papers to be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for constitution of a three-Judge Bench to look into the effect of our previous judgments as well as whether the language of Order VIII Rule 6A of the Civil Procedure Code is mandatory in nature.”

(emphasis supplied)

3. Before we proceed further, we need to allude to the brief factu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top