1177 1178 SUBJECT-INDEX ABATEMENT: (See under: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908)

86 Pages·2014·0.2 MB·English

SUBJECT-INDEX 1178
(3) Policy matter – Scope of judicial review.
ABATEMENT:
(See under: Judicial Review) .... 636
(See under: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908) .... 597
(4) Principles of natural justice.
ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE:
(See under: Service Law) .... 37
Statutory authorities to act with promptitude.
(See under: Insecticides Act, 1968) .... 1 (5) (i) Principle of promissory estoppel – Nature
and applicability of – Discussed.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW:
(1) Delegated legislation. (ii) Principle of legitimate expectation –
(See under: Legislation) .... 251 Applicability of.
(2) (i) Framing of policy – Held: Is the domain of
Transmission Corpn. of A.P. Ltd. &
the Government – It must do so within the
Anr. v. Sai Renewable Power Pvt.
framework of the Constitution and the laws –
Ltd. & Ors. .... 636
Concept of reservation has been provided
primarily under Article 16 of the Constitution – (6) Promissory estoppel.
Minority institutions have been excluded under
(See under: Consumer Protection Act,
Article 15(5) from application of reservation policy
1986) .... 475
– State may not be well within its constitutional
duty to compel linguistic minority institutions to ADVOCATES ACT, 1961:
accept a policy decision, enforcement of which s. 2(i) – ‘Legal practitioner’ – Meaning of.
will impinge upon their fundamental right and/or (Also See under: Service Law as also
protection – Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles under Ethics)
15(5) and 16 – Delhi School Education Rules,
1973 – r. 64(1)(b) – Reservation. Dinesh Chandra Pandey v. High Court of
M.P. & Anr. .... 37
(ii) Policy decision – Change of – Reasons for –
Held: When Government changes its policy ALTERNATIVE DISPUTES RESOLUTION/
decision, it is expected to give valid reasons – REDRESAL (ADR) PROCESS:
Absence of reasons and apparent non-application Settlement in an ADR process – Binding effect of
of mind would give colour of arbitrariness to State – Held: When the court refers the matter to
action. arbitration u/s.89 of CPC, the arbitration award is
binding on the parties and is executable/
Sindhi Education Society & Anr. v. The Chief
enforceable as if it is a decree of a court – The
Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. .... 81
other ADR processes i.e. ‘Conciliation’, ‘Lok
1177
1179 1180
Adalat’, ‘Settlement’ and ‘Mediation’ are non- APPEAL:
adjudicatory – The settlement agreement in (1) Appeal before Supreme Court.
conciliation or the Lok Adalat award will have to (See under: Customs Act, 1962) .... 996
be placed before the court for recording it and
disposal in its terms by applying the principles of (2) Dismissal of statutory appeal vis-à-vis dismissal
O.23 r.3 CPC and make a decree/order in respect of special leave petition by non-speaking order –
of matters which are the subject of the suit/ Distinction between.
proceedings – In regard to the settlement which
Pernod Ricard India (P) Ltd. v.
are not the subject matter of the suit/proceedings,
Commissioner of Customs, ICD T
the court has to direct that the settlement are to
ughlakabad .... 996
be governed by s.74 of Arbitration Act (in respect
of conciliation settlements) or s.21 of the Legal (3) (See under: Code of Civil Procedure,
Services Authorities Act, 1987 (in respect of
1908) .... 597
settlements by a Lok Adalat or a Mediator) –
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.74 – ARBITRATION ACT, 1940:
Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 – s.21. s.34 – Application for stay of proceedings in a
(Also See under: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908) civil suit – Rejected – Order upheld in appeal and
revision – Thereafter application u/s 8 of 1996
Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. and Anr. v.
Act filed – Application dismissed by trial court as
Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (P)
also by High Court – However, High Court
Ltd. and Ors. .... 1053
observing that the 1996 Act not applicable to suits
relating to partition of joint family properties – Held:
ALTERNATIVE REMEDY:
Order dismissing application u/s. 34 having
(See under: Constitution of India, 1950) .... 982
become final, High Court and trial court rightly
ANDHRA PRADESH ELECTRICITY REFORMS ACT, dismissed the application u/s 8 of the 1996 Act –
1998: However, observation of the High Court that the
s.11. 1996 Act would not apply to civil disputes is set
aside – Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 –
(See under: Electricity) .... 636
s.8.
ANDHRA PRADESH EXCISE ACT, 1968: (Also See under: Arbitration and Conciliation
ss.34(e), 41 and 42. Act, 1996)
(See under: Code of Criminal Procedure,
H. Srinivas Pai & Anr. v. H.V. Pai (D)
1973) .... 423
thr. Lrs. & Ors. .... 413
1181 1182
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996: BOMBAY HIGH COURT (APPELLATE SIDE) RULES,
(1) s.34 – Arbitration Award – Challenge to – 1960:
Petition u/s. 34 along with the application for (See under: Constitution of India, 1950) .... 836
condonation of delay in filing application –
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Dismissal of, since it was filed, beyond the period
(PRCEDURE) RULES, 1987:
of three months plus thirty days – Held: The petition
r. 2(e).
was not barred by limitation – Date of delivery of
(See under: Service Law) .... 37
award on non-working days could not be construed
as ‘receipt’ of award by addressee – Delay
CENTRAL EXCISE ACT, 1944:
condoned – Matter remanded to High Court for
s.4(4)(d)(i) – Valuation of excisable goods for
consideration afresh – Limitation Act, 1963 – s.
assessment of excise duty – Cost of secondary
12 – General Clauses Act, 1897 – s. 9.
packing – Exclusion of – Held: By including the
cost of packing in value of goods, legislature has
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. v.
sought to extend the levy beyond the manufactured
M/s. Himachal Techno Engineers & Anr. .... 1025
article itself and, therefore, the provision has to
(2) s.74. be strictly construed – Cost of additional packing
(See under: Alternative Disputes Resolution/ in the nature of secondary packing cannot be
Redressal (ADR) Process as also under added in the value of goods in terms of s.4(4)(d)(i)
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908) .... 1053 for assessment of excise duty – Interpretation of
Statutes.
(3) Applicability of the Act – Held: Reference to
arbitration and arbitability depends upon the National Leather Cloth Manufacturing Co. v.
existence of an arbitration agreement, and not Union of India & Anr. .... 971
upon the question whether it is a civil dispute or
commercial dispute – There can be arbitration CENTRAL EXCISE RULES, 1944:
agreements in non-commercial civil disputes also r. 57-Q – Steel plates and M.S. Channels used in
– Arbitration Act, 1940 – s.34. the fabrication of chimney for the diesel generating
set – Fall within the purview of serial no.5 of the
(Also See under: Arbitration Act, 1940)
Table below Rule 57Q and thus entitled to modvat
H. Srinivas Pai & Anr. v. H.V. Pai (D) credit under the said rule – Central Excise Tariff
thr. Lrs. & Ors. .... 413 Act, 1985 – Chapter 85.
BAIL: Commissioner of Central Excise,
(See under: Code of Criminal Procedure, Jaipur v. M/s. Rajasthan Spinning and
1973) .... 211 Weaving Mills Ltd. .... 396
1183 1184
CENTRAL EXCISE TARIFF ACT, 1985: appropriate ADR process before the case
Chapter 85. proceeds to trial.
(See under: Central Excise Rules, 1944) .... 396
(ii) s.89 – Anomalies in s.89 and its correct
CIRCULARS/GOVERNMENT ORDERS/ interpretation – Held: The first anomaly is the
NOTIFICATIONS: mixing up of the definitions of ‘mediation’ and
Circular issued by Education Department of Delhi ‘judicial settlement’ under clauses (c) and (d) of
Government in September 1989. sub-section (2) of s.89 – The second anomaly is
(See under: Education/Educational that sub-section (1) of s.89 imports the final stage
Institutions) .... 81 of conciliation referred to in s.73(1) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act into the pre-ADR
COAL BEARING AREAS (ACQUISITION AND reference stage under s.89 – The clauses (c) and
DEVELOPMENT) ACT, 1957: (d) of sub-section (2) of s.89 would make perfect
ss. 4(1), 7, 9, 11 and 13. sense by interchanging the word “mediation” in
(See under: Land Acquisition) .... 750 clause (d) with the words “judicial settlement” in
clause (c) – As regards second anomaly, it is not
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908: possible for the courts to formulate or re-formulate
(1) s.25 – Transfer petition – Allegations of the terms of a possible settlement at a preliminary
infringement of registered trade mark against hearing to decide whether a case should be
schools run by Chennai based Society – Suits by referred to an ADR process and, if so, which ADR
Committee filed in District Court in Delhi u/s.134 process – This anomaly was diluted in Salem Bar-
of the Trade Marks Act – Schools filed petition for II by equating “terms of settlement” to a “summary
transfer of the suits to Civil Court in Chennai– of dispute” – Alternative disputes resolution (ADR)
Held: The mere convenience of the parties may processes – Interpretation of statutes.
not be enough for the exercise of power but it
must also be shown that trial in the chosen forum (iii) s.89 – Reference to ADR process under –
will result in denial of justice – On facts, there is Whether mandatory – Held: Having a hearing after
no valid ground for transfer of the suits – Trade completion of pleadings, to consider recourse to
Marks Act, 1999 – s.134. ADR process u/s. 89 is mandatory – But actual
reference to an ADR process in all cases is not
D.A.V. Boys Sr. Sec. School Etc. v. mandatory except where the case falls under an
D.A.V. College Managing Committee .... 952 excluded category.
(2) (i) s.89 – Object of – Held: Is to try for (iv) s.89 – ADR process – Governing statutes –
settlement between the parties by resorting to Held: s.89 makes it clear that two of the ADR
1185 1186
processes, i.e. ‘Arbitration’ and ‘Conciliation’ (3) O. 8, r.6-A – Counter claim by returned
would be governed by the provisions of the candidate – Maintainability.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act and two other ADR (See under: Representation of the People
processes i.e. ‘Lok Adalat Settlement’ and Act, 1951) .... 525
‘Mediation’ would be governed by the Legal
Services Authorities Act – ‘Judicial settlement’ is (4) O.9 r.13 – Setting aside ex-parte decree –
not governed by any enactment and the court has Application for, dismissed by trial court holding it
to follow such procedure as may be prescribed to be time-barred – Allowed by appellate court –
(by appropriate rules) – Arbitration and However, set aside by High Court – Held:
Conciliation Act, 1996 – Legal Services Application u/O. 9 r. 13 was filed within time –
Authorities Act, 1987. There was a valid explanation for the delay –
Delay/laches.
(v) s.89, O.10, r.1A – Procedure to be followed by
courts in implementing s.89 and Order 10, r.1A – Bhagmal & Ors. v. Kunwar Lal & Ors. .... 1104
Guidelines laid down.
(5) O. 22, rr. 3 and 9; s.151 – Death of appellant
during pendency of appeal before Supreme Court
(vi) s.89 and O.10, r.1A – Distinction between –
– Application filed long after the prescribed period
Held: r. 1-A of O.10 requires the court to give the
of limitation for bringing legal representatives of
option to the parties, to choose any of the ADR
deceased on record accompanied by application
processes – This would mean a joint option or
for condonation of delay – Held: Application not
consensus about the choice of the ADR process
maintainable – Appellants acted irresponsibly and
– On the other hand, s.89 vests the choice of
even with negligence, and miserably failed in
reference to the court.
showing any ‘sufficient cause’ for condonation of
(vii) s.89 – Consent of the parties for reference to the long delay – Limitation Act, 1963 – s.5 –
ADR processes – Held: For referring matter to Abatement.
arbitration or to conciliation, consent of all the
Balwant Singh (Dead) v. Jagdish Singh
parties to the suit is required – Lok Adalat,
& Ors. .... 597
Mediation and Judicial Settlement do not require
consent of the parties.
(6) O. 39, rr. 1 and 2 and s.151 – Injunction –
Grant of.
Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. and Anr. v.
(See under: Wakf Act, 1995) .... 777
Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (P)
Ltd. and Ors. .... 1053
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973:
(1) s. 95 – Notification under – Forfeiture of books
1187 1188
– On the basis of FIR alleging offences u/ss. 153, bail have to be applied according to facts and
153A r/w s. 34 IPC – Notification quashed by nuances of each case – In the instant case, no
High Court – Held: The power u/s. 95 has direct case has been made out for allowing application
impact on the right of freedom of speech and u/s 439(2) r/w s.482.
expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution and impinges on right to privacy – Pravinbhai Kashirambhai Patel v. State of
Therefore, the provision has to be construed strictly Gujarat & Ors. .... 211
and the power thereunder must be exercised only
(7) s.482 – Petition for quashing of criminal
in accordance with procedure laid down therein –
proceedings against a retired public servant – FIR
It is mandatory for such notification to state the
alleging commission of offences punishable under
ground on which the Government formed its
the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act
opinion – Test of validity of notification – Legal
and the Penal Code – Cognizance taken –
aspects to be kept in mind – Constitution of India,
Challenged on the ground of 17 years delay –
1950 – Article 19(1)(a) – Interpretation of statutes.
Held: Cognizance was taken after four years of
retirement of the public servant even though the
State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Sangharaj
request for sanction had been rejected by State
Damodar Rupawate & Ors. .... 328
Government on two occasions – In the peculiar
(2) s.162(2). facts, initiation of proceedings not justified –
(See under: Evidence Act, 1872) .... 794 Proceedings quashed – Constitution of India,
1950 – Article 136.
(3) s. 245.
(See under: Insecticides Act, 1968) .... 1 Louis Peter Surin v. State of Jharkhand .... 1115
(4) s. 313 – Essential features of –Explained. (8) s.482 – Scope of – Black jaggery transported
for alleged preparation of illicit liquor – Seizure
Mannu Sao v. State of Bihar .... 811 and confiscation – Case registered against
accused under ss.34(e), 41, 42 of the Andhra
(5) s. 313 – Power of court to examine accused
Pradesh Excise Act – Order of High Court
– Object of – Explained – Penal Code, 1860 –
quashing the proceedings – Held: Not justified –
ss.302/34 and 302/149.
Complaint prima facie disclosed commission of
the offence and involvement of accused – Exercise
Dharnidhar v. State of U.P. .... 173
of inherent power u/s.482 – Explained – Andhra
(6) s.439(2) r/w s.482 – Cancellation of Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 – ss.34(e), 41, 42.
anticipatory bail – Held: Principles normally
State of A.P. v. Gourishetty Mahesh & Ors. .... 423
required for granting regular bail or anticipatory
1189 1190
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (JAMMU & satisfying the requirements of law – Article 30(2)
KASHMIR), SAMVAT 1989 (AD 1933): requires the State not to discriminate the minority
s.374 – Applicability of – Conviction of accused institution in relation to matters of grant-in-aid –
for the offences under TADA Act and RPC, by Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 – r.64(1)(b).
designated court – Life imprisonment – Appeal to (ii) Articles 15, 29 and 30 – Linguistic minority –
Supreme Court without confirmation of the order Right to establish and administer school – Held:
of imprisonment by High Court – Power of Includes right to appoint teachers – To appoint a
Supreme Court to look into legality of life teacher is part of the regular administration and
imprisonment in view of s. 374 – Held: In view of management of the school – A provision of law or
ss. 2(b), 14, 19 and 25 of TADA Act, for the trial a circular which would be enforced against the
before designated court, Cr.P.C., 1973 is general class may not be enforceable with the
applicable and not Cr.P.C., Samvat 1989 – Thus, same rigors against minority institutions,
s. 374 is not applicable – Therefore, Supreme particularly, where it relates to establishment and
Court can look into the legality of life imprisonment management of a school – Delhi School
– Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Education Rules, 1973 – r.64(1)(b).
Act, 1987 – ss. 2(b), 14(3), 19 and 25 – Ranbir
Penal Code, Samvat 1989 – ss. 302 and 120-B. (iii) Articles 14, 15(5), 16, 29 and 30(1) –
(Also See under: Terrorist and Disruptive Reservation policy – Exception in regard to
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987) minority institutions – Held: Although State is
entitled to make law and reservations in different
Mohd. Ayub Dar v. State of J & K .... 916 fields for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and
backward classes in the service under the State,
COMPANIES ACT, 1956:
but Article 15(5) carves out an exception for
s.630.
minority educational institutions in regard to which
(See under: Constitution of India, 1950) .... 764 the said power cannot be exercised.
COMPENSATION: (iv) Articles 12,14 and 16 – “State” – Reservation
Land Acquisition – Grant of compensation to non- in relation to ‘service under the State’ – Linguistic
writ petitioners also. minority school run by a registered society –
(See under: Land Acquisition) .... 750 Receiving grant-in-aid – Held: The expression
‘service under the State’ would include service
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950:
directly under the State or its instrumentalities
(1) (i) Articles 14,15, 29 and 30(2) – Minority
which can be termed as State within the meaning
Institutions – Grant-in-aid – Held: To receive grant-
of Article 12 – Merely receiving grant-in-aid per
in-aid is a legitimate right of a school subject to
se would not make a minority school or institution
1191 1192
‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 – Delhi (8) Article 142 – Inherent power of Supreme Court
School Education Rules, 1973 – r.64(1)(b). – Servant quarter attached to company’s flat given
(Also See under: Administrative Law as also to employee by virtue of his service, with a
under: Delhi School Education Rules, 1973) condition to hand over the possession on
retirement – Possession not handed over by
Sindhi Education Society & Anr. v. employee even long after retirement – Complaint
The Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of by Company u/s.630 of Companies Act –
Delhi & Ors. .... 81 Dismissed on technical ground by court’s below
– Held: Courts below erred in dismissing the
(2) Article 16 – Right to equality in the matters of
complaint on technical ground – Employee
employment.
directed to vacate the premises – Equity –
(See under: Employment Exchanges
Companies Act, 1956 – s.630 – Licence.
(Compulsory Notification of Vacancies)
Act, 1959) .... 733 Automobile Products India Ltd. v.
Das John Peter & Ors. .... 764
(3) Article 19(1)(a).
(See under: Code of Criminal Procedure, (9) Article 215 – Criminal contempt of court – A
1973) .... 328 message by Senior Advocate-alleged contemnor
– Expressing concern about falling standards of
(4) Articles 129 and 145.
legal fraternity – Published in Souvenir of a Literary
(See under: Rules to Regulate Proceedings
Association of Advocates – The message not
for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975) .... 723
released to press – Souvenir not made available
for sale – Excerpts from the message published
(5) Article 136.
in Daily News Paper suggesting that the
(See under: Code of Criminal Procedure,
contemnor-Advocate made frontal attack on
1973 as also under: Penal Code, 1860) .... 1115
judiciary – Criminal contempt petition filed – Held:
and 1119
The message contributed by the advocate-
(6) Article 136. contemnor to the Souvenir does not bring the
administration of justice into disrepute or impair,
(See under: Service Law) .... 37
within the meaning of ‘criminal contempt’ u/s. 2
(7) Article 136 – Supreme Court would not sit as (c) of Contempt of Courts Act – No case of criminal
appellate authority over formation of opinion and contempt made out either against the Advocate-
determination of tariff by specialized bodies. contemnor or other contemnors – Contempt of
(See under: Electricity) .... 636
1193 1194
Courts Act, 1971 – s. 2(c). entertaining the writ petition – In cases of property
rights and in disputes between private individuals,
Hari Singh Nagra & Ors. v. Kapil writ court should not interfere unless there is any
Sibal & Ors. .... 879 infraction of statute or it can be shown, that private
individual is acting in collusion with a statutory
(10) Article 226.
authority –Bombay High Court (Appellate Side)
(See under: U. P. Avas Evam Vikas
Rules, 1960.
Parishad Adhiniyam,1968) .... 19
(ii) Articles 226 and 227 – Jurisdiction under
(11) Article 226 – Exercise of writ jurisdiction in
Articles 226 and 227 – Distinction between –
matters falling in the domain of executive – High
Explained.
Court in a writ petition setting aside the order of
Nazul Officer by which he rejected petitioner’s
(iii) Article 227 – Power of superintendence over
application for NOC filed without payment of lease
courts and tribunals by High Court – Exercise of
rent – Held: The Nazul Officer is better equipped
– Principles formulated.
with to decide the application for grant of NOC –
Even if the order of Nazul Officer requires (iv) Article 226 – Writ – Issuance of – Held: Writ
interference, the appropriate forum is the Collector petition is a remedy in public law – High Court
u/s. 18 of the Revenue Book Circular – It is not can issue writ to any person, but person against
such a case which warrants direct interference by whom writ will be issued must have some statutory
High Court in exercise of its extra-ordinary or public duty to perform.
jurisdiction under Article 226 – Revenue Book
Circular (Madhya Pradesh) – s.18 – Shalini Shyam Shetty and another v.
Constitutionalism – Separation of powers – Rajendra Shankar Patil .... 836
Alternative remedy.
CONSTITUTIONALISM:
(Also See under: Contempt of Court)
Separation of powers.
State of Madhya Pradesh v. (See under: Constitution of India, 1950) .... 982
Nerbudda Valley Refrigerated Products
Company Pvt. Ltd & Ors. .... 982 CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986:
(1) ss 2(o), 2(g) and 23 – Sanction of loan by
(12) (i) Articles 226, 227 and 32 – Dispute State Financial Corporation to complainant – Non-
between landlord and tenant – Writ petition by release of balance instalments by Corporation –
tenant challenging the decree passed by trial court Complaint alleging deficiency in service – Held:
and affirmed by first appellate court – Dismissed Non-release of loan amount was not because of
by High Court – Held: High Court erred in
1195 1196
any deficiency on the part of Corporation, but was (3) Medical college – Lack of recognition and other
due to complainant’s conduct as he failed to furnish deficiencies – Withdrawal by student – Complaint
progress report and did not discharge his liability by student against college on account of loss of
towards interest despite repeated demands – It academic year – Held: Refund of the amount of
could not give rise to claim for recovery of any fee deposited by student with interest till the date
amount under the Act. of payment meets the ends of justice – Directions
issued by State Commission and modified by
Managing Director, Maharashtra State National Commission for payment of further
Financial Corporation & Ors. v. Sanjay amount of compensation set aside – Education/
Shankarsa Mamarde .... 358 Educational Institutions.
(2) Complaint by a student against University –
Controller, Vinayak Mission Den. Col.&
Maintainability of – Student pursuing two courses
Anr. v. Geetika Khare .... 719
simultaneously – University conferred degree in
(4) (See under: Insurance) .... 61
one course only – Complaint before Consumer
Forum – University directed by consumer courts
CONTEMPT OF COURT:
to confer the degree – Held: The direction to the
(1) Contempt petition – In writ petition High Court
University to confer the degree was in violation of
directing Nazul Officer to decide the application
the statutory provision i.e. Examination Rules –
for NOC filed by petitioner and to consider
Court has no competence to issue a direction
particular documents only – Nazul Officer on
contrary to law – The fact that the student was
consideration of the relevant rules and regulations,
allowed to appear in the exam does not create
rejecting the application – High Court directing
estoppel against the University – There can be no
the Nazul Officer to explain his “misconduct” –
estoppel/promissory estoppel against an authority
Held: When a matter is remitted to original
from enforcing a statutory prohibition – The student
authority, it must be allowed to take a decision in
is neither a consumer nor is the University
accordance with the statutory provisions, rules and
rendering any service – Therefore, consumer forum
regulations and there cannot be any restriction on
was not right in entertaining the complaint –
such a course – An error therein to be set right by
Education – General Rules of Examination of
appellate authority – Direction to explain
Maharshi Dayanand University – Clause 17 –
‘misconduct’ not correct – Constitution of India,
Estoppel/Promissory Estoppel.
1950 – Article 226 – Practice and Procedure.
Maharshi Dayanand University v.
State of Madhya Pradesh v.
Surjeet Kaur .... 475
Nerbudda Valley Refrigerated Products
Company Pvt. Ltd & Ors. .... 982