Gratuity Is a Property Right, Not a Charity: MP High Court Upholds Gratuity Claims of Long-Term Contract Workers Seized Vehicles Must Not Be Left to Rot in Open Yards: Madras High Court Invokes Article 21, Orders Release of Vehicle Seized in Illegal Quarrying Case Even After Talaq And A Settlement, A Divorced Muslim Woman Can Claim Maintenance Under Section 125 CRPC: Kerala High Court Bail Cannot Be Withheld as Punishment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail to Govt Official in ₹200 Cr. Scholarship Scam Citing Delay and Article 21 Violation Custodial Interrogation Necessary in Serious Economic Offences: Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in ₹1.91 Cr Housing Scam Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Not Every Middleman Is a Trafficker: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail in International Cyber Trafficking Case, Cites Absence of Mens Rea Stay in One Corner Freezes the Whole Map: Madras High Court Upholds Validity of Decades-Old Land Acquisition Despite 11-Year Delay in Award Parole Once Granted Cannot Be Made Illusory by Imposing Impossible Conditions: Rajasthan High Court Declares Mechanical Surety Requirement for Indigent Convicts Unconstitutional Once Acquisition Is Complete, Title Disputes Fall Outside Civil Court Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Appeal Lies Against Lok Adalat Compromise Decree Even on Grounds of Fraud: Orissa High Court Declares First Appeal Not Maintainable Sanction to Prosecute Under UAPA Cannot Be a Mechanical Act: Supreme Court Quashes Jharkhand Government’s Third-Time Sanction Without New Evidence FIRs in Corruption Cases Cannot Be Quashed on Hyper-Technical Grounds of Police Station Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Restores ACB Investigations Quashed by Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Completion of Ayurvedic Nursing Training Does Not Confer Right to Appointment: Supreme Court Rejects Legitimate Expectation Claim by Trainees University’s Error Can’t Cost a Student Her Future: Supreme Court Directs Manav Bharti University to Issue Withheld Degree and Marksheets Due to Clerical Mistake Disciplinary Exoneration Cannot Shield Public Servant from Criminal Trial in Corruption Cases: Supreme Court Customs Tariff Act | ‘End Use’ and ‘Common Parlance’ Tests Cannot Override Statutory Context: Supreme Court Classifies Mushroom Shelves as ‘Aluminium Structures’ Supreme Court Allows PIL Against Limited Maternity Benefits for Adoptive Mothers to Continue Under New Social Security Code Liberty Cannot Wait for Endless Trials: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Wadhawan Brothers in ₹57,000 Crore DHFL Scam

Delhi High Court Grants Final Opportunity for Sole Witness Examination in Ejectment Suit

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Delhi High Court, presided over by HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, granted a significant legal decision in a civil suit titled ‘MGR Holding Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Loil Overseas Foods Ltd.’. The ruling addressed the crucial issue of permitting the examination of a sole witness in a case involving ejectment and recovery of mesne profits.

The court, in its observation, emphasized the importance of granting the petitioner a final opportunity for the examination of its sole witness. The judgment stated, “With the consent of the parties, the Petitioner is permitted to lead evidence of the sole defendant witness Sh. Balbir Singh Uppal on 11.12.2023 on the following terms.” This decision underscores the court’s commitment to ensuring that all parties have a fair opportunity to present their case.

The legal point emphasized in this judgment pertains to the discretion exercised by the court in allowing the examination of a sole witness. The court’s decision, based on the facts and law, emphasized that this opportunity is granted with strict terms and conditions. The court noted, “The Petitioner will not seek any adjournment, on account of the inconvenience of the witness and shall ensure that the examination and cross-examination of the witness are concluded on the date(s) fixed by the Trial Court.”

Furthermore, the court clarified that if the petitioner fails to lead evidence as per the specified terms, the previous orders of the Trial Court shall become operative. This decision underscores the court’s commitment to ensuring the timely and fair resolution of legal disputes.

Date of Decision: December 7, 2023

LOIL OVERSEAS FOODS LTD.  VS MGR HOLDING.

Latest Legal News