9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was mandatory for suits involving permanent injunction. 2. Whether the waiver of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was valid based on presumption or actual waiver. 3. Whether the decision in Vellayan Chettiar v. Govt. of the Province of Madras was applicable to the present case. 4. Whether the conflict of opinion among various High Courts regarding the applicability of Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure in suits for permanent injunction was resolved by the Privy Council. 5. Whether the judgment in Sawan Mal v. Union of India through the General Manager, Northern Rly., Baroda House, New Delhi should be referred to a larger Bench due to differing views. Analysis: 1. The case involved a dispute where the plaintiff-respondents sought a permanent injunction against the defendant-appellant after their services were terminated. An objection was raised regarding the lack of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which the Civil Judge upheld, leading to the dismissal of the suit. The District Judge, on appeal, remanded the case for a fresh trial, emphasizing the need to determine whether the notice had been waived or not. 2. The District Judge's decision was based on the plea raised in paragraph 17 of the plaint, which suggested a presumed waiver of notice rather than an actual waiver. The judgment highlighted the distinction between actual waiver and presumed waiver, citing the Privy Council's decision in Vellayan Chettiar v. Govt. of the Province of Madras, which clarified the requirement for actual waiver. 3. The judgment referenced historical conflicts among High Courts regarding the applicability of Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure in suits for permanent injunction. It noted the resolution of this conflict by the Privy Council in Bhagchand Dagdusa Gujarathi v. Secy. of State for India, emphasizing the express and mandatory nature of Section 80. 4. The judgment also discussed the Supreme Court's stance on the application of Section 80 in suits involving injunction, citing the case of Sawai Singhai Nirmal Chand v. Union of India. It underscored the importance of adhering to the statutory provisions without implying exceptions, as highlighted in various judicial precedents. 5. The judgment addressed the conflicting views presented in the case of Sawan Mal v. Union of India, where the judge expressed a differing opinion from the current judgment. However, the judge declined to refer the case to a larger Bench, considering the lack of conflicting decisions by other judges, ultimately allowing the appeal and rejecting the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure based on the lack of mandatory notice under Section 80.
|
