General and commercial law

This query is : Resolved 

Avatar

Querist : Anonymous

Profile Image
Querist : Anonymous (Querist)
19 February 2013 1) A requisition was received by the sub-inspector of a police station from another police station to arrest one Mohan in connection with commission of a non cognizable offence. accordingly, the sub inspector arrested Mohan. Is the action of the sub-inspector valid?
2) Mukesh instituted a suit against Girish beyond the prescribed period of limitation. girish did not raise the objection that the suit was barred by the limitation. the civil court allowed the suit for ahearing and decreed. would the decree be treated valid in such a suit? decide giving reasons.
3) permission was sought by a foreign national to establish an industry for shoes in delhi. the competent authority refused the permission. the foreign national intends to file a writ petition challenging the order on teh ground that in india persons are guaranteed fundamental right to freedom of trade. will he succeed?
4) A dancer enters into a contract with the owner of a theatre. she agrees that she will give performance in the theatre for a period of one month and during this period she will not give dance performance in any other theatre. can this be specifically enforced against the dancer?

19 February 2013 Answer to 1:

In the present problem, arrest is required to be made in connection with a non-cognizable offence for which warrant is necessary. Therefore, Mohan cannot be legally arrested without warrant. The sub-inspector cannot arrest Mohan on the basis of requisition alone.

Section 41(1)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides that police can arrest a person without warrant for whose arrest a requisition is received from other police station only when the offence, in connection of which requisition is made, is such for which arrest warrant is not required.

19 February 2013 Answer to 2:

Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides that any suit, appeal, or application made beyond the prescribed period of limitation shall be dismissed, although limitation has not been set up as a defence. It is the duty of the Court not to proceed with such suits irrespective of the fact whether the plea of limitation has been raised or not by the defendant. Section 3 of the Limitation Act is mandatory.

" It is true that Section 3 of the Limitation Act is peremtory and that it is the duty of the Court to take notice of this provision and give effect to it even though the point of limitation is not referred to in the pleadings. Even so it cannot be said that where the Court falls to perform its duty, it acts without jurisdiction. If it fails to do its duty, it merely makes an error of law and an error of law can be corrected only in the manner laid down in the Civil Procedure Code. If the party aggrieved does not take appropriate steps to have that error corrected, the erroneous decree will hold good and will not be open to challenge on the basis of being a nullity."


You need to be the querist or approved CAclub expert to take part in this query .
Click here to login now


CCI Pro
CAclubindia's WhatsApp Groups Link


Similar Resolved Queries


loading


Unanswered Queries


CCI Pro
Meet our CAclubindia PRO Members


Follow us


Answer Query