A person is senior by virtue of seniority and deserves to be respected: HC

  • A person is senior by virtue of seniority and deserves to be respected: HC

  • New Delhi, Jan 7 (PTI)
A person is a senior by virtue of his seniority and should be respected even if he has less academic qualification than juniors, the Delhi High Court has observed.

The high court said insubordination is misconduct and refused to interfere with the orders of a special executive magistrate (SEM) and a trial court directing a junior AIIMS doctor, who had an argument with his senior, to maintain peace in the South Delhi area.

“Senior is by virtue of his seniority, may be having less academic degrees than juniors, still he or she should be respected and maintain the subordination,” Justice Suresh Kumar Kait said.

The issue relates to an argument between the doctor and the head of department (HoD) of Rheumatology in March 2017, following which the senior woman doctor had complained to the police against the subordinate.

The court was dealing with the plea of an All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) doctor challenging the SEM’s August 3, 2018 order holding that it was established that he used to talk to the complainant, who is the head of department, in a loud voice and his behaviour was improbable, undesirable and uncalled for on two occasions, that is, at the OPD and the doctor’s chamber.

The SEM had also bound down the doctor to maintain peace in jurisdiction of South Delhi district for a period of one year in sum of Rs 10,000.

The high court said, “As of now, more than one year has already been passed. Thus, nothing remains in the present petition to interfere with the orders passed by the SEM and the additional sessions judge.”

Before the high court, the doctor claimed that he was not properly advised on the issue of filing the appeal against the order passed by the SEM by his previous lawyers and the trial court also proceeded to dismiss his appeal only on the ground of limitation.

Justice Kait said the petitioner was a qualified MBBS doctor and the plea taken by him that he was ill advised by his previous counsel not to challenge the SEM’s order saying that the same is not of much consequence, does not stand to reason as the impugned order was so clear to be understandable even by a lay man.

The high court said it does not lie in the mouth of the doctor to say that he was not aware of the consequences of that order on his career or service record.

“The petitioner (doctor) is an educated person and it cannot be believed that he was not aware of the import of the impugned order or the repercussions of said order on his career or service record,” it said.

The court noted that the doctor was selected and appointed assistant professor in 2016 and claimed to be highly qualified, while the complainant was the head of department of Rheumatology.

“Thus, whatsoever academic qualification the petitioner has, he cannot compare with respondent no.2 (complainant HOD) who has very vast experience and presently HOD where the petitioner just started his career in AIIMS only in the year 2016 and present incident is dated March 22, 2017,” the high court said.

“Thus, it seems the petitioner has attitude because of his so-called educational qualification but forgetting that insubordination is misconduct,” it said.

The court said the complainant is a woman and HoD, thus, petitioner was not supposed to create ruckus in her chamber and threat her for dire consequences.

Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013

Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013

Substitution of new sections for sections 375, 376, 376A, 3768, 376C and 376D.

9. For sections 375,376,376A, 376B, 376Cand 376D of the Penal Code, the following sections shall be substituted, namely:—

Rape.

‘375. A man is said to commit “rape” if he-—

a. penetrates his penis, to any extent, into the vagina, mouth, urethra or anus of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person; or

b. inserts, to any extent, any object or a part of the body, not being the penis, into the vagina, the urethra or anus of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person; or

c. manipulates any part of the body of a woman so as to cause penetration into the vagina, urethra, anus or any ~ of body of such woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person; or

d. applies his mouth to the vagina, anus, urethra of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person, under the circumstances falling under any of the following seven descriptions:— First.—Against her will. Secondly.—Without her consent.

Third/y.—With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her or any person in whom she is interested, in fear of death or of hurt.

Fourth/y.—With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband and that her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully married.

Fifth/y.—With her consent when, at the time of giving such consent, by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication or the administration by him personally or through another of any stupefying or unwholesome Substance, she is unable to understand the nature and consequences of that to which she gives consent.

Sixthly.—With or without her consent, when she is under eighteen years of age.

Seventhly.—When she is unable to communicate consent.

Explanation I.—For the purposes of this section, “vagina” shall also include labia majora.

Explanation 2.—Consent means an unequivocal voluntary agreement when the woman by words, gestures or any form of verbal or non-verbal communication, communicates willingness to participate in the specific sexual act:

Provided that a woman who does not physically resist to the act of penetration shall not by the reason only of that fact, be regarded as consenting to the sexual activity.

Exception I.—A medical procedure or intervention shall not onstitute rape.

Exception 2.—Sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under fifteen years of age, is not rape.’.

Punishment for rape.

376.

1. Whoever, except in the cases provided for in sub-section (2), commits rape, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not he less than seven years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.

2. Whoever,—

a. being a police officer, commits rape—

i. within the limits of the police station to which such police officer is appointed; or

ii. in the premises of any station house; or

iii. on a woman in such police officer’s custody or in the custody of a police officer subordinate to such police officer; or

b. being a public servant, commits rape on a woman in such public servant’s custody or in the custody of a public servant subordinate to such public servant; or

c. being a member of the armed forces deployed in an area by the Central or a State Government commits rape in such area; or

d. being on the management or on the staff of a jail, remand home or other place of custody established by or under any law for the time being in force or of a women’s or children’s institution, commits rape on any inmate of such jail, remand home, place or institution; or

e. being on the management or on the staff of a hospital, commits rape on a woman in that hospital; or

f. being a relative, guardian or teacher of, or a person in a position of trust or authority towards the woman, commits rape on such woman; or

g. commits rape during communal or sectarian violence; or

h. commits rape on a woman knowing her to be pregnant; or

i. commits rape on a woman when she is under sixteen years of age; or

j. commits rape, on a woman incapable of giving consent; or

k. being in a position of control or dominance over a woman, commits rape on such woman; or

l. commits rape on a woman suffering from mental or physical disability; or

m. while committing rape causes grievous bodily harm or maims or disfigures or endangers the life of a woman; or

n. commits rape repeatedly on the same woman, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person’s natural life, and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section,—

a. “armed forces” means the naval, military and air forces and includes any member of the Armed Forces constituted under any Jaw for the time being in force, including the paramilitary forces and any auxiliary forces that are under the control of the Central Government!, or the State Government;

b. “hospital” means the precincts of the hospital and includes the precincts of any institution for the reception and treatment of persons during convalescence or of persons requiring medical attention or rehabilitation;

c. “police officer” shall have the same meaning as assigned to the expression “police” under the Police Act, 1861;

d. “women’s or children’s institution” means an institution, whether called an orphanage or a home for neglected women or children or a widow’s home or an institution called by any other name, which is established and maintained for the reception and care of women or children.

Punishment for causing death or resulting in persistent vegetative state of victim.

376A. Whoever, commits an offence punishable under sub-section (l) or sub¬section (2) of section 376 and in the course of such commission inflicts an injury which causes the death of the woman or causes the woman to be in a persistent vegetative state, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person’s natural life, or with death.

Sexual intercourse by husband upon his wife during separation

376B. Whoever has sexual intercourse with his own wife, who is living separately, whether under a decree of separation or otherwise, without her consent, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than two years but which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation.—In this section, “sexual intercourse” shall mean any of the acts mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) of section 375.

Sexual intercourse by person in authority.

376C. Whoever, being—

a. in a position of authority or in a 6duciary relationship; or

b. a public servant; or

c. superintendent or manager of a jail, remand home or other place of custody established by or under any law for the time being in force, or a women’s or children’s institution; or

d. on the management of a hospital or being on the staff of a hospital, abuses such position or 6duciary relationship to induce or seduce any woman either in his custody or under his charge or present in the premises to have sexual intercourse with him, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than 6ve years, but which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation l.—In this section, “sexual intercourse” shall mean any of the acts mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) of section 375.

Explanation 2. —For the purposes of this section, Explanation I to section 375 shall also be applicable.

Explanation 3.—”Superintendent”, in relation to a jail, remand home or other place of custody or a women’s or children’s institution, includes a person holding any other office in such jail, remand home, place or institution by virtue of which such person can exercise any authority or control over its inmates.

Explanation 4.—The expressions “hospital” and “women’s or children’s institution” shall respectively have the same meaning as in Explanation to sub-section (2) of section 376.

Gang rape.

376D. Where a woman is raped by one or more persons constituting a group or acting in furtherance of a common intention, each of those persons shall be deemed to have committed the offence of rape and shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to life which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person’s natural life, and with fine:

Provided that such fine shall be just and reasonable to meet the medical expenses and rehabilitation of the victim:

Provided further that any fine imposed under this section shall be paid to the victim.

Punishment for repeat offenders.

376E. Whoever has been previously convicted of an offence punishable under section 376 or section 376A or section 3760 and is subsequently convicted of an offence punishable under any of the said sections shall be punished with imprisonment for life which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person’s natural life, or with death.’.

SC asks Nusli Wadia, Ratan Tata to resolve differences in defamation case

    SC asks Nusli Wadia, Ratan Tata to resolve differences in defamation case

The Supreme Court Monday asked Bombay Dyeing chairman Nusli Wadia and Ratan Tata, chairman emeritus of Tata Sons, to sit together and resolve their differences in a defamation case.

Wadia filed a criminal defamation case against Ratan Tata and other directors of Tata Sons in 2016 after he was voted out of the boards of some Tata Group companies.

“You both are mature people. You both are leaders of industry. Why don’t you both settle the matter. Why don’t you sit together and resolve your differences. Do you all need to pursue litigation like this?”, said a bench headed by Chief Justice S A Bobde.

The bench, also comprising Justices B R Gavai and Surya Kant, which was initially inclined to dispose of the matter while upholding the finding of Bombay High Court that there was no intention of defamation, adjourned the matter for January 13, after counsel for Wadia said that he would like to seek instruction from his client on the separate suit filed in the matter.

At the outset, Senior advocate A Sundaram, appearing for Wadia, said that he has nothing against Tata Group and was not claiming any defamation caused to him by his removal from the board.

“I am not against the company, which removed me. I am against those people who requisitioned for the resolution, which was eventually leaked to the media,” he said, adding that they should withdraw the allegations.

The bench told Wadia that Ratan Tata and others have some grievances against him and questioned as to how does that amount to defamation.

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Ratan Tata said that Wadia has given a statutory notice seeking the response.

He said there is a finding by the Bombay High Court that there was no intention to defame and the court should record this and dispose of the petition.

As soon as the bench finished dictating the order, that it was upholding the findings of High Court, Sundaram said he has instruction from his client that he would like to pursue the defamation suit filed in the matter.

To this, the bench said that it does not understand as why he (Wadia) is going to pursue the suit.

It asked Sundaram to seek instruction from his client by January 13 and inform the court as to whether he wants to pursue the suit filed in the matter.

Wadia has moved the apex court challenging the High Court order of last year, quashing proceedings initiated by a Mumbai local court against Tata Sons’ former chairman Ratan Tata, its current chief N Chandrasekaran and eight directors in a criminal defamation case filed by him.

On December 15, 2018, a magistrate court in Mumbai had issued notices to Ratan Tata and the others in the criminal defamation case filed by Wadia.

Wadia filed the defamation case in 2016 after he was voted out of the boards of some Tata Group companies, and claimed that Tata and others made defamatory statements against him after they removed Cyrus Mistry on October 24, 2016 as the group chairman of Tata Sons.

Tata and others had then approached the high court seeking to quash and set aside the proceedings initiated against them.

Main features of consumer protection act 2019:: Important facts!!

The main features of The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 are as follows:-

1. District forum is renamed as District Commission

2. The Opposite Party needs to deposit 50% of the amount ordered by District Commission before filing appeal before State Commission, earlier the ceiling was of maximum of Rs. 25,000/-, which has been removed.

3. The limitation period for filing of appeal to State Commission is increased from 30 days to 45 days, while retaining power to condone the delay.

4. State Commission shall have a minimum of 1 President and 4 Members

5. The original pecuniary jurisdiction of District Commission shall be uptil Rs. 1 Crore, State Commission from 1 Cr – 10 Cr. And NCDRC to be more than Rs. 10 crore

6. Now complainant can also institute the complaint within the territorial jurisdiction of the Commission where the complainant resides or personally works for gain besides what was provided earlier

7. Section 49(2) and 59(2) of the new act gives power to the State Commission and NCDRC respectively to declare any terms of contract, which is unfair to any consumer, to be null and void.

8. A second appeal to NCDRC has been provided U/s 51(3) if there is a substantial question of law involved in the matter

9. Power of revision can still be exercised by NCDRC U/s 58(1)(b) and by State commission under 47(1)(b) of the Act.

10. Power of review has been conferred to District Commission, State Commission and NCDRC U/s 40, 50 and 60 of the Act respectively

11. NCDRC can hear appeals against the order of Central Authority by virtue of Section 58 of the Act

12. Period of limitation in filing of complaint remains 2 years with a provision for condonation of delay power U/s 69 of the Act

13. Section 70 provides for administrative control of State Commission over District Commission and that of NCDRC over State Commission. It inter alia provides for investigation into any allegations against the President and members of a State Commission / District Commission and submitting inquiry report to the State Government concerned along with copy endorsed to the Central Government for necessary action

14. Section 71 confers power of execution as provided Under Order XXI, The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with such limitation as provided in the section

15. Mediation is given statutory status by way of introduction of Section 74 in the new Act

16. A product liability action may be brought by a complainant against a product manufacturer or a product service provider or a product seller, as the case may be, for any harm caused to him on account of a defective product.

17. Chapter III of the Act provides for creation of Central Authority to regulate matters relating to violation of rights of consumers, unfair trade practices and false or misleading advertisements which are prejudicial to the interests of public and consumers and to promote, protect and enforce the rights of consumers as a class

18. The Central Authority shall have an Investigation Wing headed by a Director General for the purpose of conducting inquiry or investigation under this Act as may be directed by the Central Authority

19. The Act of 2019 has come into effect w.e.f. 9.8.19 and old Act of 1986 stands repealed, subject to section 1(3) of the New Act.

20. Rules regarding appointment, conditions of service etc. of the Members are to be notified soon.

The list is not exhaustive and the above is just a bird’s eye view only of the new Act. For more / exact details kindly refer to the notification dated 9.8.19 notifying the Act.

Most important legal terms for legal drafting

LEGAL WORDS ARE MOST HELPFUL FOR LEGAL DRAFTING.Expedient – To Prioritize , to rushCavil – Argument by which a conclusion evidently false , is drawn from a principle evidently true.Elusive – Difficult to find , catch or achieve.Scuffle – a short , confused fight or struggle at close quarters.Credential – a qualification, achievement , quality, or aspect of a person ‘s background , especially when used to indicate their suitability for something.Oblivious – Aware.Accustomed – Customary ; usual.Treacherous – Guilty of or involving betrayal.Erudite – learned.Accentuating – More noticeable.Crescendo – Progressive increase in intensity.Tedious –Too long , slow or dull.Dreadful – involving great suffering.Enigma – Mysterious or difficult to understand.Sceptical – Doubtful.Sardonic – grimly mocking or cynical.Habeas corpus – a prerogative writ to a person who detains another in custody and which commands him to produce or ‘ have the body of that person before him ‘Mesne – middle, intervening or tame by nature.Per se – by itselfNocumentum – an annoying , unpleasant or obnoxious thing or ptactice.Non obstante – notwithstandingPrima facie – on the face of it.Aequitas – Equity i.e fair or just according to natural law.Bona fide – in good faith.Certiorari – a writ of a superior court calling forth the records and entire proceedings of an inferior court or a writ by which causes are removed from an inferior court into a superior court.Obiter dictum – an incidental and collateral opinion uttered by a judge while delivering a judgement and which is not binding.Pari material – on the same material.Pendente lite – during the process of litigation.Supra – above.Status quo – the state in which the things are , or were.Volkogeist – general awareness of the people.Res judicata – a case or suit already decided.RE – in the matter of.Ratio Legis – according to spirit of lawScienter – knowledge ; an allegation in a pleading that the thing has been done knowingly.Ex gratia –as an act of grace or favour.In rem – an act , proceeding or right available against the world at large, as opposed to in personam.Noscitur a socits – a word known by its associates , i.e the meaning of a word cab be gathered from the context.Res sub judicata – a matter under judicial consideration.Ad hoc – created or done for a particular purpose as necessary.Pertinent – Relevant or applicable to a particular matter , apposite.Curative petition – question arises whether an aggrieved person is entitled to any relief against the final judgment / order of the Supreme Court, after dismissal of a review petitionErect –rigidly upright or straight.Advent – arrival of a notable person or thing.Submergence – to cover ; bury.Vicinity –the area near or surrounding a particular place.Detention –the act of detaining someone or the state of being in official custody.Rebuttable – an instance of rebutting evidence or an accusation.Preclude – prevent from happening ; make impossible.Discrepancy – an illogical or surprising lack of compatibility or similarity between two or more facts.Superannuation – pension paid to a retired employee who has contributed to a superannuation fund.Ordinance – An authoritative orderPromulgation – to make known by open declaration; publish ; proclaim formally or put into operation.Consortium – the right of association and companionship with one’s husband or wifeAverred – allege as a fact in support of a pleaEstoppel – the principle which precludes a person from asserting something contrary to what is implied by a previous action or statement of that person or by a previous pertinent judicial determination.Plenary – unqualified ; absoluteImpugned – dispute the truth , validity or honesty of ( a statement or motive ) ; call into question.Prejudiced – harm or injury that results or may result from some action or judgement.Legal Luminary – a person who inspires or influences others , especially one prominent in a particular sphere.Plagiarized – the act of appropriating the literary composition of another , or parts or passages of his writings , or the ideas or language of the same , and passing them off as the product of one’s own mind.Evacuee – A person evacuated from a place of danger.Demarcate – Set the boundaries or limits of.Unfettered – not confined or restrictedDiscernible – able to be discerned ; perceptible.Arenas – a place or scene of activity , debate , or conflict.Transgression – An act that goes against a law , or code of conduct ; an offence.Construed – interpret in a particular way.Consonance – Agreement or compatibility , between opinions or actions.Retrospectively – looking back.Dissuade – persuade not to take a particular course of action.Rationale – set of reasons.Embezzlement – Theft or misappropriation of funds placed in one’s trust or belongings to one’s employer.Perished – die , especially in a violent or sudden way.Inter alia – among other thingsArbitration – the use of an arbitrator to settle a dispute.Action: Shorthand for “cause of action”; for example, a court action to obtain relief, a judicial remedy to enforce or protect a right, or a proceeding by a plaintiff against a defendant to enforce an obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff.Acts non facitreum, nisi means sit rear: An act does not make one guilty. Unless he has a guilty mind. (For crime, there must be both act and evil intent.)Adhesion contract: A contract drafted by the stronger party, then presented for acceptance to the weaker party, who has no power to modify its terms.Ad item: (Latin: For the suit) A “guardian ad listen” is a guardian appointed to represent a person who is incapable of acting on his own behalf.Advance sheets, advance pamphlets: Paperback publications printed and distributed as soon as possible after a judicial decision, in order that the information be available before it appears in a bound volume. (Slip laws are similar publications of acts passed by a legislative body.)Affirmative defense: A defense which does more than deny the plain tiffs allegations; it also brings forth new allegations. Aforethought: Arrived at beforehand; a premeditated. Allegation: A statement that a party to a lawsuit intends to prove. Amicus curiae: (Latin: A friend of the court) One who interposes in a legal action.Appellant: The party who appeals to a higher court from the judgment against himself in a lower court, sometimes called “petitioner.” appellee: The party against whom a case is appealed from a lower court to a higher court, sometimes called “respondent.” assumpsit’s: A common law action to recover damages for the nonperformance of a contract.Attractive nuisance: A condition on one’s premises that is dangerous to children and yet so alluring to them that they may enter.Bad faith: The opposite of “bona fide” (in good faith): motivated by ulterior motives or by furtive intent.Beyond a reasonable doubt: The proof required of the prosecutor in criminal proceedings.Breach: Violation of a duty; the breaking of an obligation. Burden of evidence; the duty of one party to produce evidence to meet or present a prima facie case.Burden of proof: The duty to establish in the trial the truth of a proposition or issue by the amount of evidence required.Case: A controversy to be decided in a court of justice. case law: The law set forth in the decisions of appellate courts, that is, in cases that have been decided.Case in point: A previously decided case that is similar in important respects to the one now being decided.Case system: Analysis of actual cases that have been decided, the method used in many law school courses to teach law students.cause sine qua non: (Latin: cause without which nothing,) The determining cause, without which a result would not have occurred. cause: An action or suit; sometimes used synonymously with “case.” caveat: (Latin: Let him beware,) Used in phrases like “caveat emptor,” (let the buyer beware).Certiorari: Literally, to be made certain? a writ of review or inquiry by an appellate court re-examining an action of an inferior tribunal or to enable the appellate court to obtain further information in a pending cause.Change of venue: The removal of a suit for trial from one county to another.Charged with crime: Accused of a crime, either formally or informally.Chattels: Movable property, in contrast to real estate.Chose: From Old French: a thing. An item of personal property, a chattel.Civil action: An action to enforce a civil right, as distinguished from a criminal action.Class action: An action brought on behalf of a class of persons by one or more nominal plaintiffs.Clean hands doctrine: The principle by which the court of equity requires that one who comes to it for relief must not be guilty of wrongful conduct.Clear and convincing evidence: A degree of proof higher than that of preponderance of the evidence and lower than that of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.Color: Mere semblance of a legal right.Common law: Legal rules, principles, and usage that rest upon court decisions rather than upon statutes or other written declarations.Condition precedent: A condition that must occur before something else comes into effect.Contract: (Williston) An agreement upon sufficient consideration to do or refrain from doing a particular lawful thing.Conversion: A wrongful act of dominion over another’s property.Convict: (verb) To find a person guilty of the crime charged.Court of last resort: The highest court to which a case may be taken, from which no appeal can be made.Criterion: The test on which a judgment or a decision is based.Damage: Harm resulting from illegal invasion of a legal right.Damages: Compensation imposed by the law to one who has suffered harm due to another’s wrongdoing.Decision: The conclusion reached by a court in adjudication of a case, or the decision reached by arbitration; sometimes synonymous with judgment.Declaratory judgment: A decision stating the rights and duties of the parties, but involving no relief as a result.De facto: (Latin: from the fact) In fact or reality, as contrasted with de jure, by right or by law, defamation: Libel or slander.Degree of care: A standard, testing conduct to decide whether the conduct is negligent.Degree of proof: The amount of evidence required in action to establish the truth of an allegation.de minimis non curatlex: (Latin; The law is not concerned with trifles.)Demurrer: A statement that even if the facts as stated are true, their legal consequences do not require that the action proceed further.Detriment: (in contract law) some forbearance on the part of one party, as consideration for the contract.Devise: A testamentary gift of real estate.Doctrine: A rule or principle of law developed by court decisions.due care: The care that a person of ordinary prudence would take in similar circumstances.Due process of law: A course of legal proceedings according to the rule of justice established to enforce and protect private rights.Earnest money: A payment of part of the purchase price to bind the contract.ejusdem generic: (Latin: of the same kind.)Embezzlement: The fraudulent appropriation of property or money entrusted to one person by another.Encumbrance: A hindrance or impediment that burdens or obstructs the use of land.Entirety: The whole as distinguished from a part, as used to refer to the joint estate of spouses.Equal protection: Generally refers to the guaranty under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution that all persons should enjoy the same protection of the law.Equity: A principle which provides justice when ordinary law may be inadequate.Escheat: The reversion or forfeiture of property to the government because persons who have a legal claim to it are absent.Establish: In evidence, to settle a disputed or doubtful fact.E stop: (From Old French: to stop up.) To bar, preclude, prohibit.Except: (verb) to object; to take exception to a court order or ruling.Facial: Pertaining to the language on the face of a document, pleading, statute, or writ.For cause: For legal cause, as in the challenge of a juror.Four corners: The entire face of a document; thus, the construction of a document itself, as a whole.Frivolous: So unmeritorious as to require no argument to convince the court of this fact.Fungible goods: Goods of a kind in which all units are identical.Fundamental error: In appellate practice, an error so material as to render a judgment void.Garnish: To warn, summon, or notify.Good cause: Substantial legal reason.Good faith: Sincere motivation or behavior lacking fraud or deceit.Guardian: One entrusted by law with the control and custody of another person or estate.Guilty mind: Criminal intent (Latin: mensrea.) harmless error: In appellate practice, error committed during the trial below, but not prejudicial to the rights of the party assigning it, and because of which, therefore, the court will not reverse the judgment below.Hostile possession: Possession of land under a claim of exclusive right. hypothetical fact situation: A fictional legal problem, postulated by law professors, in order to sharpen their students’ analytical skills.Id.: Abbreviation of “idem,” (Latin: the same.)i.e.: Abbreviation of “id est.,” (Latin: that is.)In absentia: (Latin: In [someone’s] absence,)In banco: (Latin: On the bench); that is, when all judges are sitting.Inferior: With less legal power, subordinate.Injure: (Latin: in law,)Liguria: (Latin: a wrong)] a violation of a legal right.In personal: (Latin: involving the person,)In rem: (Latin: involving the matter or thing,)Inter alia: (Latin: among others,)In toto: (Latin: in total)] altogether, wholly.Ipso facto: (Latin: by that fact)Lessee: One who has leased property from another; tenant.lesser: One who has leased property to another; landlord.lax talionis: The law of retaliation.Malfeasance: Legal misconduct; an act that is legally wrong.Material (adjective): Important, of the essence.Matter: Those facts that constitute the entire ground or a part of the ground for an action or a defense.Misfeasance: The doing of a lawful act in an unlawful manner.Moiety: A part of something. (From Old French: moiete; half,)Moot question: (1) an academic question; (2) a question which has lost significance because it has already been decided, or for other reasons.Mortgagee: One to whom a mortgage is made.Mortgagor. One who takes out a mortgage on his property?Natural person: A real person, in contrast to a corporation.Negligence per se: (Latin: negligence in itself?] negligence as defined by the law.Novo contendere: (Latin: I do not wish to contend.)Nonfeasance: The failure to act, when action is legally required.n.o.v.: Abbreviation of Latin: “non obstinate veredicto,” notwithstanding the verdictNotorious possession: Possession of real property openly.Nudum pactum: (Latin: a bare pact)] thus a promise lacking consideration.Nullity: Something that has no legal effect.Parole: Oral, as contrasted to “in writing.”Patent ambiguity: Obvious upon ordinary inspection; contrasts with “latent ambiguity.”Per curiam: (Latin: by the court)] as a whole.Person: Either an individual or an organization, e.g., a corporation.Perspires: (Latin: by class); distribution according to the share a deceased ancestor would have taken.Plaintiff: The party bringing an action.Precatory words: Words expressing desire rather than command.Prejudicial: Detrimental to one party in a dispute.Preponderance of evidence: The greater weight and value of the evidence adduced.Presumption: An assumption about the existence of a fact; a presumption may be either rebuttable or irrefutable (conclusive).Prima facie case: A cause of action sufficiently established to justify a favorable verdict if the other party to the action does not rebut the evidence.Probable cause: Reasonable cause.Proximate cause: that event or occurrence which produces the injury, and without which the injury would not have occurred.Punitive damages: Damages beyond compensatory damages, imposed to punish the defendant for his act.Quantum meruit: (Latin: As much as it is worth)] the amount deserved.Question of fact: A question for the jury to decide, upon conflicting evidence.Question of law: A question about the law affecting the case, for the judge to decide.Recovery: The amount a claimant receives as a result of a judgment.Remedy: The means of enforcing a legal right or redressing a legal injury.Res: (Latin: thing)] matter.Res ipsa loquitur: (Latin: The thing speaks for itself,)Res judicata: (Latin: The thing having been adjudicated.) The earlier judgment thus bars a second action.Respondeat superior: (Latin: The superior is responsible,) the doctrine that imposes liability upon an employer for the acts of his employees in the course of their employment.Rule: A statement of law that will henceforth act as precedent; a principle established by authority.Satisfaction: Performance of the terms of an agreement; discharge of an obligation.Scienter: (Latin: knomngly.) Often means defendant’s “guilty knowledge.”Seasonable: Within the agreed time or at the agreed time. If no time is stipulated, a “reasonable” time.Seisin: Possession coupled with the right of possession.Strict construction: Narrow or literal construction of language.Sui generis: (Latin; of its own kind)-, thus the only one of its kind.Tort: A wrong, for which a civil action is a remedy, outside of contract law.Tortfeasor: One who commits a tort; a wrongdoer.Vicarious liability: The imposition of liability upon one person for the acts of another.

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started