Advertisements
Advertisements
Question
Principle: No court can execute the decisions unless it is having territorial jurisdiction over the property or the person against whom a decision is to be executed. The Court which gave the decision can transfer the matter to the court which has the territorial jurisdiction over the person or property.
Facts: A decision is given by the court at New Delhi on a contractual matter against X in a suit between X and Y. X is a resident of Maharashtra and he has properties in Maharashtra and Gujarat.
Options
New Delhi court can transfer the proceedings to Court at Maharashtra only
New Delhi court can execute the decision because it had the jurisdiction to decide the matter so it can execute also
New Delhi court can transfer the proceedings to court at Gujarat only
New Delhi court can transfer the proceedings to either of the courts i.e. Maharasthra or Gujarat
Advertisements
Solution
New Delhi court can transfer the proceedings to either of the courts i.e. Maharasthra or Gujarat
Explanation:
New Delhi court can transfer the proceedings to either of the courts i.e. Maharashtra or Gujarat. This is according to the principle that the Court which gave the decision can transfer the matter to the court which has the territorial jurisdiction over the person or property.
APPEARS IN
RELATED QUESTIONS
One of the reasons for recusal of a Judge is that litigants/the public might entertain a reasonable apprehension about his impartiality. As Lord Chief Justice Hewart said: "It is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done." And therefore, in order to uphold the credibility of the integrity institution, Judge recuses from hearing the case. A Judge of the Supreme Court or the High Court, while assuming Office, takes an oath as prescribed under Schedule III to the Constitution of India, that: "… I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established, that I will uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India, that I will duly and faithfully and to the best of my ability, knowledge and judgment perform the duties of my office without fear or favour, affection or ill-will and that I will uphold the Constitution and the laws." Called upon to discharge the duties of the Office without fear or favour, affection or ill-will, it is only desirable, if not proper, that a Judge, for any unavoidable reason like some pecuniary interest, affinity or adversity with the parties in the case, direct or indirect interest in the outcome of the litigation, family directly involved in litigation on the same issue elsewhere, the Judge being aware that he or someone in his immediate family has an interest, financial or otherwise that could have a substantial bearing as a consequence of the decision in the litigation, etc., to recuse himself from the adjudication of a particular matter. No doubt, these examples are not exhaustive. The simple question is, whether the adjudication by the Judge concerned, would cause reasonable doubt in the mind of a reasonably informed litigant and fair-minded public as to his impartiality. Being an institution whose hallmark is transparency, it is only proper that the Judge discharging high and noble duties, at least broadly indicate the reasons for recusing from the case so that the litigants or the well-meaning public may not entertain any misunderstanding. Once reasons for recusal are indicated, there will not be any room for attributing any motive for the recusal. To put it differently, it is part of his duty to be accountable to the Constitution by upholding it without fear or favour, affection or ill- will. Therefore, I am of the view that it is the constitutional duty, as reflected in one's oath, to be transparent and accountable, and hence, a Judge is required to indicate reasons for his recusal from a particular case.
As per the passage if right-minded persons entertain a feeling that there is any likelihood of bias on the part of the Judge, he must recuse. Does the passage also mentions about the recourse to be taken if there is mere possibility of such a feeling is
Mark the best option:
Who appoints the Chairman of State Public Service Commission?
Under the Government of India Act, 1935, the Indian Federation worked through which kind of list
Which of the following Article provides the Right of Citizenship of certain migrants to Pakistan?
Which of the following Article lays down no religious instruction shall be provided in any educational institution wholly maintained out of state funds?
Under which Article of the Constitution of India can the President of India be impeached?
The Parliament can legislate on any subject in the State List
- If the Rajya Sabha declares by a two-third majority resolution that it is expedient to do so in the national interest.
- For the implementation of international treaties or agreements.
- If two or more states make a request to Parliament to do so.
- When Article 356 is imposed in the state.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
Which article concerned with the appointment of Acting Judge by the President?
Answer the question which follows from the application of the under mentioned legal principle.
Principle: Only Parliament or State Legislatures have the authority to enact laws on their own. No law made by the State can take away a person’s fundamental right.
Facts: Parliament enacted a law, which according to a group of lawyers is violating the fundamental rights of traders. A group of lawyers files a writ petition challenging the Constitutional validity of the statute seeking relief to quash the statute and further direct Parliament to enact a new law.
The following question consists of two statements one labelled as ‘Assertion’ (A) and other as ‘Reason’ (R). You are to examine these two statements carefully and select the correct answer.
Assertion (A): All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish or, administer educational institutions of their choice.
Reason (R): Institutions established by the minorities are not entitled to governmental aid and government is not under an obligation to give aid.
