MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Minor Omissions in Counter-Claim Filing Not Grounds for Dismissal: Kerala High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant legal decision, Justice A. Badharudeen of the Kerala High Court clarified the treatment of minor omissions in the filing of counter-claims. The judgment, which pertained to a property dispute, has far-reaching implications for legal practice and procedure.

 Justice Badharudeen observed, “Omissions in the form and content of the counter-claim shall not be grounds for dismissal in the interest of justice.” This ruling reinforces the principle that technical irregularities in legal documents should not hinder access to justice.

 The case involved a dispute between a plaintiff and defendant over property ownership. The plaintiff had asserted title to certain properties, while the defendant based their claim on documents. The plaintiff failed to substantiate their claims, and the defendant’s evidence supported their ownership rights. Both the trial court and the appellate court had confirmed the defendant’s title and possession, a decision upheld by Justice Badharudeen.

 Additionally, in a related matter, the plaintiff had sought additional time to vacate the disputed property. The defendant, citing financial difficulties, opposed this request. The judgment granted the plaintiff two months to vacate the property, with the condition that they file an affidavit within three weeks confirming their commitment. Failure to file the affidavit within the specified time will void the extension.

 This ruling serves as a reminder that the essence of justice should not be overshadowed by technicalities, and that the courts should consider the interests of all parties involved. It sets a precedent for future cases involving counter-claims and emphasizes the need for a fair and equitable legal process.

 Legal experts and practitioners are already discussing the implications of this judgment, with some heralding it as a significant step towards a more accessible and just legal system.

 Advocate R. Sunil Kumar represented the plaintiff, while Advocate Hena Bahuleyan represented the defendant in this case.

 Date of Decision: September 5, 2023

ANIL KUMAR vs   SUNIL KUMAR

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/AnilKumar_Vs_Sunil_05Sep23_KerlHC.pdf"]

Latest Legal News