Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Amalgamated Electricity Company LTD. VS Municipal Committee, Ajmer...
1968 0 Supreme(SC) 175 : The legal document states that Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code applies only to suits in respect of any act purporting to be done by a public officer in his official capacity. Therefore, if an act is done by a public officer outside his official duty, it does not fall within the scope of Section 80, and notice under Section 80 is not required. This is explicitly supported by the principle that the expression ''''act'''' includes illegal omissions, but only when such acts or omissions purport to be done in an official capacity. Hence, if the act is not one that purports to be done in an official capacity, Section 80 does not apply, and no notice is required.Checking relevance for Ram Kumar VS State of Rajasthan...
2008 7 Supreme 373 : The legal documents state that a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not required if a public officer has not done any act in his official capacity. In the case at hand, the court held that since the respondent No.3 (District Education Officer) had not performed any act in his official capacity, service of notice under Section 80 was not necessary. The court emphasized that the suit did not challenge any order or act of the respondent No.3, but only sought a consequential decree for recovery of possession, which was delivered by the District Collector (respondent No.2) in his official capacity. Therefore, the court concluded that no notice was required under Section 80 because the respondent had not acted in his official capacity.Checking relevance for Yerikala Sunkalamma VS State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Revenue...
Checking relevance for Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner VS Ramesh Chanderjha...
Checking relevance for Patil Automation Private Limited VS Rakheja Engineers Private Limited...
Checking relevance for State Of Maharashtra VS Chander Kant...
Checking relevance for Raghav Chadha VS Rajya Sabha Secretariat...
Checking relevance for Rishabh Duggal VS Registrar General, Delhi High Court...
Checking relevance for Amreli District Panchayat VS Durlabhjibhai Devsibhai...
Checking relevance for Monoranjan Mohanty VS State Engineer, Doordarshan Maintenance Centre, Balasore...
Checking relevance for P. B. SHAH AND CO. VS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER...
Checking relevance for GOWARDHANDAS RATHI VS CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA...
Checking relevance for State of A. P. VS Pioneer Builders, A. P. ...
Checking relevance for Durga Prasad VS Parveen...
Checking relevance for SUDHIR RANJAN HALDER VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL...
Checking relevance for Bishandayal And Sons VS State Of Orissa...
Checking relevance for Salig Ram VS Shiv Shankar...
Checking relevance for VIJAY PAHWA VS BRATATI MUKHERJEE...
2001 0 Supreme(Cal) 617 : Section 80 of the CPC requires notice to be given before filing a suit against a public officer for acts done in their official capacity. However, this requirement does not apply to acts done beyond the scope of official duty.Checking relevance for B. L. Shukla VS Fatmabai Ismail...
1975 0 Supreme(Guj) 1 : The document states that Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code does not apply to acts done purely in a private capacity by a public servant. It clarifies that the section is not applicable when the act is not in respect of an act done or purported to be done in the discharge of official duty, and specifically notes that the requirement of notice under Section 80 arises only when the act is done or purported to be done in the discharge of official duty. Therefore, if a public officer acts outside his official duty, notice under Section 80 is not required.Checking relevance for Mohanta Raghabananda Das VS D. V. A. Naidu...
1960 0 Supreme(Ori) 22 : A notice under Section 80, C.P.C., is not necessary when a public officer does an act which cannot be done in their official capacity. This principle was applied in the case where the Civil Supply Inspector had the power to seize paddy without authority from the S.D.M. under the Orissa Foodgrains Control Order, 1946, meaning the act was within his jurisdiction even if done with mala fides. Therefore, since the act was one that could be done in official capacity, the absence of notice was not fatal to the suit. However, the key legal proposition directly answering the user''''s query is that notice under Section 80, C.P.C., is not required when the act is outside the public officer''''s official duty or jurisdiction—i.e., when the act cannot be done in their official capacity.
