Questions and answers on law(Part 47)

 Q 1 :- Permanent injunction is granted in favour of plaintiff restraining Municipal corporation from obstructing possession of plaintiff over suit property. Municipal corporation has demolished construction of plaintiff over suit property . Whether DH can claim damages of Rs 50 lakhs in Darkhast without paying court fees for breach of permanent injunction? Whether DH should file separate suit for getting damages?

Ans:- O 21,R 32 of CPC:-  Decree for specific performance for restitution of conjugal rights, or for an injunction.

(5) Where a decree for the specific performance of a contract or for an injunction has not been obeyed, the Court may, in lieu of or in addition to all or any of the processes aforesaid, direct that the act required to be done may be done so far as practicable by the decree-holder or some other person appointed by the Court, at the cost of the judgment-debtor, and upon the act being done the expenses incurred may be ascertained in such manner as the Court may direct and may be recovered as if they were included in the decree.

As per this rule Court can direct municipal corporation to make reconstruction over suit property. But grant of damages is beyond the scope of O 21 R 32 of CPC. Hence DH can not claim damages in darkhast.

Q 2:- Whether a party can claim declaration in case of anticipatory breach of contract?

Ans: - In case of breach of contract, the relief generally available is the recovery of damages against the erring party. No declaration is involved when breach of contract is involved. In case of any anticipated breach, no declaration can be claimed and granted. Moreover, no cause of action to file any suit arises on mere anticipation of breach. The cause of action arises when the threat is real and in all probabilities generate the genuine apprehension in the mind of the plaintiff. Anticipation is the state of mind of the plaintiff and nothing more unless the same is corroborated by the act or conduct of the defendant.

Q 3:- Whether magistrate has power to issue directions under section 156(3) of Cr P C if the alleged offence is triable by special court e.g offence under  Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (MPID act)

Ans:- No. As offence Under MPID act is triable by special court which is Session court, Magistrate has no authority to issue directions under S 156(3) of CRPC. Magistrate can pass order U/S 156(3) of CRPC if he is entitled to take cognizance of said offence U/S 190 of CRPC.

Print Page