SC: Suit Alleging Coercion or Undue Influence Cannot be Rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC  ||  Cal HC: Once ED Attachment is Confirmed, Challenge Becomes Academic; PMLA Remedy Must be Pursued  ||  MP HC: Pen-Drive Evidence Cannot be Introduced At a Late Trial Stage Without Proof or Relevance  ||  Calcutta HC: Employee Can't be Stopped From Joining Rival Post-Resignation; Trade Secrets Protected  ||  Calcutta HC: Banks Must Provide Forensic Audit Report Before Calling an Account Fraudulent  ||  Del HC: Woman Cannot Demand Re-Entry to Abandoned Matrimonial Home if Alternate Accommodation Exists  ||  Calcutta HC: Land Acquisition For Industrial Park is Public Purpose; Leasing to Industry is Valid  ||  Patna HC: PwD Recruitment Must Comply With RPwD Act; Executive Resolutions Cannot Override the Law  ||  Madras HC: Individuals Facing Criminal Trial Must Get Court Permission Even to Renew Passports  ||  Calcutta HC: Demolition Orders Cannot be Challenged under Article 226 if a Statutory Appeal Exists    

P&H HC: Party Under Legal Obligation to Opt Where Effective Remedy is Available U/S 41(h) SR Act - (06 May 2022)

CIVIL

Punjab and Haryana High Court, while dealing with a revision petition, held that it is well-settled law that under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 where a more efficacious remedy is available, the party is under a legal obligation to opt for that remedy.

Tags : PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT   SECTION 41(H)   SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT   1963   STATUTORY PROVISIONS   EFFICACIOUS  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved