advocate in delhi

_*• Order 7, Rule 11 CPC  Suit for mandatory, permanent injunction and for recovery Rejection of plaint Plaintiff, second wife of deceased, seeking injunction to Restrain defendant from interfering with running of Franchisee business in suit property Plea that suit prayers are contrary to the compromise decree passed inter se the suit Plaintiff made no efforts to get in touch with defendant for franchisee business No document to show bona fide of plaintiff that she wanted to seek consultation/consent of defendant for entering into new franchisee business There is no likelihood of suit succeeding  Application allowed thereby dismissing suit. [Paras 13 and 14]*_ _*Sunita vs Kapil CSCOMM 818/17 29/01/20 [ MUKTA GUPTA JJ ]*_ _*[ DELHI HIGH COURT ]*_ Advocate & solicitor 8851250058 

_*• Constitution of India, Article 226  Candidate could not be penalized for answers at variance with key only if answer key was proven to be incorrect beyond doubt Answer key cannot be disregarded as being incorrect merely on doubt - There is always presumption of correctness regarding answer key and it may be subject to judicial review only when it is demonstrably wrong Examination cum Judicial Education and Training Programme Committee has considered queries raised by petitioner at length and given detailed reasons as to why impugned answer key is single, objective, correct answer of four options provided in Committee rightly concluded that impugned questions have been correctly framed and answer keys provided exam thereto are also correct Petition dismissed. [Paras 16, 17 and 18]*_ _*Shivnath vs Registrar General High Court of Delhi WPC 7346/20 27/11/20 [ MANMOHAN JJ ]*_ _*[ DELHI HIGH COURT ]*_ Advocate and solicitor 8851250058