1.1 Problems: This project is on order 1 rule 8 which deals with the representative suits. When there are number of persons similarly interested in a suit, one or more of them can, with the consent, sue or be sued on behalf of themselves and others.
1.2 Aims: The aim of this project is to determine the conditions required in the order 1, rule 8.
1.3 Objectives of the research: The objective is to see the position of the suit in the Indian jurisdiction with regards to the other jurisdiction.
1.4 Hypothesis: Whether suit filed in representative capacity on the death of one of the plaintiffs, suit will not abate.
1.5 Scope and limitations of present research: The author of this project is restricted to the representative suit and the conditions and parties included in this suit.
1.6 Research Methodology applied: The author referred many books as well as websites for completing this project.
1.7 Significance of Research: The level of research is totally on the national level.
CHAPTER 2
REPRESENATATIVE SUIT
2.1 GENERAL
As a general rule, all persons interested in a suit ought to be joined as parties to it, so that matters involved therein may be finally adjudicated upon and fresh litigations over the same matters may be avoided. Rule 8 is an exception to this general principle. It provides that when there are number of persons similarly interested in a suit, one or more of them can , with the permission of the court or upon a direction from the court, sue or be sued on behalf of themselves and others. The plaintiff in a representative suit need not obtain the previous consent of the persons whom he seeks to represent.
2.2 DEFINITION
Thus “representative suit” may be defined as und...
... middle of paper ...
...equired from the court. When such representatives compromise the suit, and the compromise is given effect to by the court, others cannot appeal from such a decree.
Order 1, rule 8(4), does not apply to a writ petition filed in a representative capacity. In a suit of representative capacity, a compromise decree was passed by the High Court without keeping in view the interest of the duty. Review by the High Court was held to be justified in the circumstances.
On behalf of 248 shares, a representative suit was filed for partition. A preliminary decree was passed and local commissioner appointed. The representative plaintiff made a suggestion for the appointment of a referee to decide objections to the report of the report of the commissioner. Referee was appointed without notice to all interested persons. It was held that other interested persons were not bound .
Washington Law Review, Vol. 86, Issue 4 (December 2011), pp. 841-874 Barnum, Jeffrey C. 86 Wash. L. Rev. 841 (2011)
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;
... be found in Mr. Hill’s case given he position set out by the majority judgement in this case.
The General Court. "General Laws." : CHAPTER 265, Section 37. 2014. Web. 20 Apr. 2014. .
R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd and others [1999] All ER (D) 1173.
In this assignment I will introduce my research project and examine some of the issues surrounding my topic, take an initial look at the research papers I have chosen for my literature review and consider the wider context that the research took place in.
...mmitment.” Gale Encyclopedia of American Law. Ed. Donna Batten. 3rd ed. Vol. 3. Detroit: Gale, 2010. 26-29. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 3 Feb. 2014.
In the following of this essay, I will: summarise 1. the question of the research; 2. the theoretical perspective of the research; 3. the conclusion of the research; and 4. describe and critically evaluate the methodology of the research.
Mr Justice Wilson, ‘Lectures on Advocacy and Ethics in the Supreme Court’ (1979) 15 Legal Research Foundation Inc.
This study sought to answer three research questions. Although the questions have been presented in previous chapters, they are worth presenting again.
all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or may they act by representatives, freely and
The unfair prejudice petition has always been regarded as the easier and more flexible option for minority shareholders’ protection compared to the statutory derivative action. The restrictive leave requirements under the statutory derivative claim where the concept of prima facie, good faith and ratification have been interpreted within the confines of the origins in the case of Foss v Harbottle do not add any appeal the statutory derivative claim. Further, the approach in relation to granting indemnity costs orders which is rather limited does not in any way encourage any potential claimant to pursue a derivative action. Recent cases which allows corporate relief to be obtained via unfair prejudice petition and even the possibility if recovering costs under and unfair prejudice petition has further relegated the significance of the derivative action.
[8] Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd v Producers and Citizens Co-operative Assurance Co. of Australia Ltd (1919) 26 CLR 110
The defendant is an Airlines Company that had 900 employees. The economic crisis followed with monetary crisis gave bad effects to the defendant. They should decrease the number of their airplanes form 9 to 2 airplanes. They also had to do the efficiency on their employees to 700. On the efficiency process, there was an agreement between the defendant and employees representation on October 30 1998. The agreement stated that they would bring Independent Public Accountant to analyze company financial condition. During the process, all side should work on their duty. The Defendant should pay employees’ wage. The agreement was not guarantee that didn’t mean the dispute process was over, but the negotiation still moved on. During the process, there was another agreement between the defendant and several employees. They agreed the finish the disputed process and the employees would get separation pay. Meanwhile, other employees, who were 153 people didn’t agree with that agreement. Because they didn’t agree each other, so the employees gave the case to the “Panitia Penyelesaian Perselisihan Perburuhan Pusat (P4P)”.
In Krell v. Henry {1903} a plea of frustration succeeded because the court held that the common purpose for which the contact was entered into, could no longer be carried out. But in the same year for similar set of facts, the Court of Appeal decided in Herne Bay v. Hutton [1903] that the contract had not been frustrated because the "common formation of the contract" had not changed. It clearly was a policy decision which shows the reluctance of the courts to provide an escape route for a party for whom the contract ha...