Delhi High Court - THe Litigating Parties Can not Enter Into A Compromise Which Affects The Interest Of Third Parties

It is an elementary principle of law that no relief can be granted in a suit against a party not impleaded as a defendant. The litigating parties cannot enter into a compromise which affects the interest of third parties or casts a liability on them. It is the duty of a Judge to ensure that a compromise effected is legal and valid and does not adversely affect the rights of third parties or cast a duty or a liability on them.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Delhi High Court - Relationship Of Employee and Employer

During the course of the hearing, the learned counsel for the workman/petitioner was asked to show if there is any document to prove that the petitioner was ever paid any monies by the respondent or any other document to prove that there was an employer–employee relationship between the workman/petitioner and the employer/respondent, but no affirmative answer has come forth. There is nothing on record to presume that such relationship ever existed. The onus of proving the relationship of employee and employer between the petitioner and the respondent lies upon the petitioner workman, this onus has not been discharged by him. Click Here To Read Full Text Of Judgement
Read more

Best Lawyer in Delhi - Advocate Amaresh Singh

Image
If you are looking for best lawyer in Delhi and its nearby at affordable prices then please contact Advocate Amaresh Singh. He has been practicing and providing services by maintaining absolute professional approach in each and every case.  Advocate Amaresh Singh  is a qualified legal professional, having obtained his law degree from University of Allahabad, in the year 1999. With highly qualifies & expertise Singh ensures that each matter is handled with a high level of research.
Read more

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA – WHETHER A POST-DATED CHEQUE GIVEN AS “SECURITY” AND MENTIONED IN THE LOAN AGREEMENT IS COVERED BY SECTION – 138 OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881 OR NOT?

Date of Judgement: 19.09.2016 Whether the dishonour of a post-dated cheque given for repayment of loan installment which is also described as “security” in the loan agreement is covered by Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 or not? The agreement recorded that post-dated cheques towards payment of installment of loan (principal and interest) were given by way of security. Contention of the appellant in support of his case was that the cheques were given by way of security as mentioned in the agreement and that on the date the cheques were issued, no debt or liability was due. Thus, dishonour of post-dated cheques given by way of security did not fall under Section 138 of the Act. The Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court of India are of the view that the question whether a post-dated cheque is for “discharge of debt or liability” depends on the nature of the transaction. If on the date of the cheque liability or debt exists or the amount has become legally recove
Read more