In our view, animals have several statutory rights, but no fundamental rights, though there are a few judgments which stops short of saying this.
If humans are entitled to fundamental rights, why not animals?, the Kerala High Court had observed in N.R. Nair And Ors., Etc. Etc. vs Union Of India AIR 2000 Ker 340 indiankanoon.org/doc/936999/
Supreme Court in Animal Welfare Board Of India vs A. Nagaraja observed that Statutory rights available to animals have to be elevated to the status of fundamental rights.. as to secure their honour and dignity. indiankanoon.org/doc/39696860/
Following this SC judgment, Tripura HC observed that 'the life of an animal cannot be deprived, save and except, in accordance with the procedure established by law.' According to HC, 'the right to life in Article 21 stands extended to all living beings' livelaw.in/pdf_upload/pdf…
Delhi HC in People For Animals vs Md Mohazzim m, 2015 SCC OnLine Delhi 9508 also observed that 'birds have fundamental rights to fly in the sky and all human beings have no right to keep them in small cages for the purposes of their business or otherwise' indiankanoon.org/doc/163664556/
154 -FIR registered
157 -Investigation begins
173(2) -Final Report is filed before Magistrate
190(1)(b) - Magistrate takes cognizance
204 -Warrant/summons issued to accused
207 - Copy of police report, documents supplied to accused
209 -Magistrate commits case to Sessions Court
226 - Prosecution case opening
227 -Discharge denied because there is sufficient ground for proceeding
228 - Charge framed
229 - Pleaded not guilty
230/231 -Prosecution evidence
232 -Not acquiited because there is sufficient evidence
233-Defence evidence 234- Arguments by both prosecution and defence 235- Prosecution proved case beyond reasonable doubt - so judgment of conviction.
A lawyer/law student should not forget these stages of a criminal case (which is exclusively triable by sessions)
Since S 37 is an appeal against the order passed in S 34 proceedings, it goes without saying that the scope of S 37 cannot be wider than S 34.
In fact, the Delhi HC in Movie Times Cineplex Pvt Ltd vs MRG Developers Pvt Ltd livelaw.in/pdf_upload/mug… held that the scope of judicial scrutiny and interference by an appellate court
under Section 37 is even more restricted, than while deciding a
petition under Section 34
Delhi HC (DB) has also observed that under Section 37 , the extent of judicial scrutiny and scope of interference is further narrower (than Section 34) 202(2013) DLT 218 Jhang Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd vs Pt. Munshi Ram And Associates Pvt Ltd. indiankanoon.org/doc/174393399/
MV Act amendment saying no MACT claim can lie after 6 months of accident came into force on 1st April 2022. Is this bar applicable to claims arising out of accidents that occurred prior to 1 April 2022? In other words, does the amendment has retrospective application?
Since the amendment came into force only six months ago, we believe that caselaws on the issue of retrospective application is only at a developing stage. But what we feel is that the limitation introduced through an amendment cannot be given retrospective effect.
For an illustration : Opposite party can file his written version to a consumer complaint within 30+15 days. He did not file it till 35 days. On 36th day, an amendment came into force saying, written version has to be filed within 15+15 days. Will this apply to this complaint?
In appeal against order of rejection of plaint, the plaintiff-appellant files an application before the Appellate Court seeking amendment of plaint? Can this application be allowed at the appellate stage?
The basic question which needs to be answered first is whether an amendment of plaint can be permitted at appellate stage? This issue is fairly settled in view of the expression 'at any stage of proceedings' in O VI R 17. This has been interpreted to include appellate stage.
On this point, i.e whether a plaint can be allowed to be amended at the appellate Stage, the Kerala HC has held that Appellate Court can allow amendments to the pleadings, even at the appellate stage, notwithstanding the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC. indiankanoon.org/doc/119860392/
".. There is no reason that health of passive smokers should also be injuriously affected. In any case, there is no reason to compel non-smokers to be helpless victims of air pollution."