A publishes a series of books under the title ― The Oxford and Cambridge Publications ― to induce the belief that the books are publications of the Oxford and Cambridge Universities or either of them. The two Universities join as ...
The judiciary plays important role in Indian democracy and acts as the guardian of the Constitution. It is also entrusted with the responsibility of upholding the rule of law. It protects our fundamental rights and enables citizens to have recourse against the other branches of Government – the execRead more
The judiciary plays important role in Indian democracy and acts as the guardian of the Constitution. It is also entrusted with the responsibility of upholding the rule of law. It protects our fundamental rights and enables citizens to have recourse against the other branches of Government – the executive and legislative – through judicial review. Without this balance, one organ would reign supreme.
Independence is essential for a judiciary to function effectively. Judges are appointed through a transparent process and cannot be easily swayed by political expediencies. Our apex court has given many landmark decisions including in Kesavanand Bharati’s case that reiterated that some parts of the Constitution are beyond Parliament’s jurisdiction to amend.
Moreover access to justice has been widened through Public Interest Litigation. Under PIL even an ordinary citizen can approach the court on matters of public question and seek justice. This has brought in democratisation of legal process whereby voiceless people could also have access to courts, so too by the marginalised.
However, there are serious challenges which have emerged recently and which could be seen as undermining efficiency of judiciary as these relates to very concerns about delays but they direly affect possibility of timely justice.
Yet, there are some very serious challenges that have surfaced in recent past and which if looked at actually do reduce efficiency of judiciary when matters relating to the said delay itself but then these do drastically reduce even the probability of timely justice.
See less
Based on the concept of “order of joining the parties”, under Order I, Rule 1 of CPC under Civil Procedure Code, 1908 of India, whether two more people can appear and approach a single court in a single suit. Legal provisions: The 'Order I, Rule 1 CPC, mentions that: Any number of individuals can beRead more
Based on the concept of “order of joining the parties”, under Order I, Rule 1 of CPC under Civil Procedure Code, 1908 of India, whether two more people can appear and approach a single court in a single suit.
Legal provisions:
The ‘Order I, Rule 1 CPC, mentions that: Any number of individuals can be brought together as claimants in a single action where —
or (a) any right to relief arises out of the same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions; and
It might do so (b)-(b) if such persons brought separate suits, any common question of law or fact would arise.
Application to the Case
1. Common Right to Relief:
Both Universities have the same complaint against A because when A employed the title “The Oxford and Cambridge Publications” people are led to assume that the books are published by the said Universities. This confers on both plaintiffs a ‘common right to relief’ in preventing A from employing the misleading title.
2. Same Act or Transaction:
Even a single transaction involved in the act of publication of books under the misleading title is abusive of th goodwill and reputation of both the Universities.These are common issues which if the Universities had filed separate suits they would have been raised as follows: more people can join and move before a single court in a singular lawsuit.
Legal provisions:
The ‘Order I, Rule 1 CPC, mentions that: “All persons may be joined as plaintiffs in one suit where —
(a) any right to relief arises out of the same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions; and
(b) if such persons brought separate suits, any common question of law or fact would arise.”
Application to the Case
1. Common Right to Relief:
The two Universities have a common grievance against A, because A’s use of the title “The Oxford and Cambridge Publications” gives rise to the belief that the books are published by either or both institutions. This gives both plaintiffs a ‘common right to relief’ in restraining A from using the misleading title.
2. Same Act or Transaction:
The act of publication of books under the misleading title itself is a ‘single transaction’ that infringes goodwill and reputation of both the Universities.
3. Common Questions of Law and Fact: If separate suits were filed by the Universities, they would have common issues such as: Whether A’s use of the title is deceptive.
– Whether it violates the rights of the Universities.
The area affected by the calamity as well as the degree or intensity of the identified loss.
Joining an action has the advantage of avoiding the parallel trials which are time consuming and therefore saver judicial resources.
Conclusion
See lessOxford and Cambridge Universities can join in filing the suit under the CPC because their rights to relief arise out of the same transaction and if separate actions were filed, there would be common question of law and fact. Pleading as plaintiffs is not a wrong approach to the procedures laid down in the present case.