SL Partners- ONE BKC’s Post

LEGAL COMMENTARY Title: “I WON AND LOST”: The curious case of Shree Vagmi Cotton Limited v James Katengo (Appeal No 68 of 2023) 2024 ZMCA 1 (12 February 2024) The recent Court of Appeal decision of Shree Vagmi Cotton Limited v James Katengo (Appeal No 68 of 2023) 2024 ZMCA 1 (12 February 2024) is an interesting one to say the least. The case showed how slim the line between victory and defeat really is for litigants. It firstly showcased when and how the Court will overlook blatant errors by litigants in order to uphold the interests of justice. It is also provides a good example of when the court will not award costs to a successful party. The case serves as a necessary warning to litigants to pursue their cases diligently. The attached commentary provides a brief synopsis of the Appeal, highlighting its most important points and concludes by sharing some important lessons that can be deduced from the case.

The Supreme Court recently held that piecemeal litigation with issues deliberately fragmented across separate proceedings, aimed at gaining unfair advantage, amounts to abuse of process of law Parties cannot be allowed to exploit procedural loopholes and approach different fora to revisit the same matters they had deliberately chosen not to pursue earlier, the Court held. Read the Court's Observation here: https://lnkd.in/dkmH2JiX #SupremeCourtofIndia #SARFAESIAct #BarandBench

  🚨 New Video Alert on Legal Shots! 🎥 🔍 Uncover the latest updates in our video: "Cheque Bounce Case: Shocking New Law! Compromise Not Enough? Supreme Court on Section 138 NI Act 2024." The recent Supreme Court judgment in RAJ REDDY KALLEM vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA brings significant changes to how cheque bounce cases are handled under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While settlements (Razinama) are still on the table, the necessity for mutual consent adds complexity. Navigating this legal maze requires understanding the intricacies of Section 138, the Rajinama process, and the latest Supreme Court ruling. Our video breaks down the key points and provides practical tips to help you through. 🔑 Key Takeaways: Mutual Consent: Essential for settlements, complicating the process. Legal Advice: Crucial to understand and navigate the new requirements. Practical Tips: Follow our guidance to handle cheque bounce cases effectively. 📚 Deep Dive: For a more detailed understanding, read our blog, "Cheque Bounce Case: Shocking New Law! Compromise Not Enough? Supreme Court on Section 138 NI Act 2024." If you have any legal issues or need further assistance, feel free to reach out to our team at Legal Shots. Don't forget to subscribe to our channel for more insightful legal content! 🔗 Watch the Video: YouTube Channel 🎥 https://lnkd.in/gw4xHfAq 🔗 Read the Blog: Blog Post 📚https://lnkd.in/gzVgNNDB   #LegalShots #ChequeBounce #SupremeCourt #Section138 #NegotiableInstrumentsAct #LegalUpdate #Rajinama #LegalAdvice #StayInformed #LegalKnowledge

To curb frivolous litigation the higher judiciary in our country uses its power to impose cost. Exemplary cost are imposed to set an example in the society by imposing cost on litigants/ Advocates who are trying to misuse the process of law. In legal terms exemplary cost are costs impose by court on a party for abuse of the court's process or conduct that is deprecable. This are imposed in exceptional cases where the party's conduct cleary demonstrates abuse of process or deprecable conduct.This recent news is an example of such cost.

Supreme Court judgment on the distinction between the variation and the replacement of a contract The Supreme Court handed down judgment yesterday in Cobalt v HMRC, which is likely to become the leading authority on the law relating to contractual variations at common law. Laurence Rabinowitz KC and Niranjan Venkatesan acted for the appellants. They were instructed by Macfarlanes LLP.  To view the full article and judgment, please visit https://lnkd.in/eUyFhd-k

Right To Practise Law Is A Fundamental Right, Bar Associations Not Empowered To Restrain Lawyers From Appearing Before Any Court: Madras HC Full link: https://lnkd.in/gT5PCS8G

(2023 SCMR 1189) The petitioners filed a suit for recovery due to a breach of contract. The court emphasized that the burden of proving the case and providing relevant documents rested on the petitioners. Despite the defendant being absent, the Trial Court required the petitioners to properly follow the legal procedure for presenting documents. However, the petitioners failed to produce the original records, and the representative who submitted the documents was not involved in their preparation or attestation. Additionally, the court noted a failure to present marginal witnesses as required by law. Consequently, the petitioners were unable to prove the execution of the documents, leading to the dismissal of their claim with costs Rs 100.000, as the court deemed it an abuse of legal process.

Claiming against a defendant that is unknown to the claimant and the court seems impossible, however, case law has shown that it is possible. You can read more about this in my recent blog post on disputeadviser.co.uk . https://lnkd.in/dWfdTZn6

What are the implications for legal practitioners when considering requirements to obtain relevant expert evidence? Ben Mahler, KordaMentha Partner, considers a NSW Supreme Court decision where the plaintiffs’ solicitor was ordered to pay the costs of a trial in circumstances where they advised their client no expert evidence was needed to prove their case. This is a bonus case review, with 300 more cases of potential interest featured in our upcoming Expert Evidence: Recent Cases book, launching on 29 October. Find out how to pre-order your copy and read more here: https://lnkd.in/gGAkYT6z #KordaMentha #ExpertEvidence

QUEENSLAND Proceedings are commenced by filing an application for assessment of costs and an affidavit, after which, a directions hearing is scheduled. The Court also appoints a particular Costs Assessor to assess costs. This order can be made by consent. The Costs Assessor then assesses costs ‘on the papers’. If you think you've been overcharged by your lawyer, call Law in Check today on 1800 529 462. #lawincheck #checkyourlegalfees #challengeyourlegalfees