Legal Dictionary

CPC Order I permits multiple persons to be joined as plaintiffs or defendants in a single suit — where the right to relief arises from the same transaction and a common question of law or fact arises.

Two or more persons jointly committing tort.

A Joint Venture (JV) Agreement governs the terms of a collaborative business arrangement between parties who retain their independent identities. JVs may be: (a) Incorporated JV — a new company formed specifically for the venture (most common); or (b) Contractual JV — a partnership or contractual arrangement without a new legal entity. Key JV Agreement provisions: ownership structure (shareholding ratios); governance (Board composition, management rights, veto rights); capital contributions (who contributes what and when); profit/loss sharing; IP ownership and licensing; exit rights (tag-along, drag-along, put/call options); non-compete obligations; dispute resolution. International JVs (between Indian and foreign parties) require compliance with FEMA regulations on foreign direct investment.

Judicial activism in India is most associated with the Supreme Court's expansion of PIL jurisdiction, the development of substantive due process under Article 21, and the court's willingness to issue directions to the executive on matters ranging from environmental protection to election reform. Indian judicial activism reached its peak under Chief Justices P.N. Bhagwati and V.R. Krishna Iyer in the 1980s. Critics argue that activism usurps legislative and executive functions; defenders argue it fills gaps left by institutional failure. The doctrine of basic structure (Kesavananda Bharati) is itself an act of judicial activism — the Court asserted a reviewing power over constitutional amendments not explicitly provided for in the Constitution.

Judicial estoppel (also called 'approbate and reprobate' in Scots law) prevents a party from successfully arguing a position before one court and then taking the opposite position before another court. Unlike other estoppels (which protect the other party from detriment), judicial estoppel primarily protects the integrity of the courts — preventing parties from manipulating judicial proceedings by taking whatever position suits them in each forum. Elements: (a) a position was clearly taken in a prior proceeding; (b) that position was accepted or adopted by the court; (c) the party now seeks to take an inconsistent position in a later proceeding; (d) the inconsistency would allow the party to benefit from their prior misrepresentation.

Under Section 2(n) BNSS 2023, a 'judicial proceeding' includes any proceeding in which evidence is or may be legally taken on oath. The significance of the definition is that false evidence given in a judicial proceeding constitutes perjury (BNS Section 229). Witnesses before a Magistrate conducting a preliminary inquiry under oath, proceedings before a court-commissioned arbitrator, or evidence before a commission of inquiry under a statute are all judicial proceedings. Administrative proceedings (even before senior officials) are not judicial proceedings unless evidence is taken on oath.

Judicial restraint is the counterpart to judicial activism — it holds that courts should not substitute their own views for those of democratically elected bodies unless there is a clear and unambiguous constitutional violation. Courts practising restraint give broad deference to Parliament and the executive on policy questions, interpret statutes narrowly, avoid deciding constitutional questions unless strictly necessary, and decline to create new constitutional doctrines without textual basis. In India, the Supreme Court has oscillated between activism and restraint — activist periods (1980s, 2010s on environment) followed by restraint periods (2020s on economic policy and electoral matters).

Courts' power to examine constitutionality of laws and actions.

Court decree suspending matrimonial obligations without dissolving the marriage — the parties are legally separated but remain married.

A jurisdiction clause (forum selection clause) tells the parties where to litigate if arbitration fails or is not agreed. In India, jurisdiction clauses in contracts between commercial parties are generally enforceable — the Supreme Court has held that parties may contractually restrict the jurisdiction of courts (Section 28 CPC). However, this is not a blanket rule: (a) parties cannot oust a court that has inherent subject-matter jurisdiction; (b) parties cannot create jurisdiction where none exists (contracting parties cannot give a Delhi court jurisdiction over a dispute involving immovable property in Mumbai if Delhi has no natural connection). A well-drafted jurisdiction clause should be consistent with the arbitration clause (if any) — the jurisdiction clause covers court proceedings; the arbitration clause covers arbitration. For international contracts, the jurisdiction clause should specify both the country/court and confirm exclusivity.

The phrase 'justice, equity, and good conscience' was used in the Letters Patent establishing the High Courts and in various statutory contexts to provide a fallback standard when specific statutory law was absent. It directs courts to apply principles that are fair, equitable, and consistent with good conscience — often drawing on English common law principles as modified by Indian conditions. In personal law (particularly for situations not covered by codified personal law), courts have applied 'justice, equity, and good conscience' to fill gaps. The standard is not a licence for unprincipled judgment — it requires application of established legal principles in an equitable manner.

Truth of statement is complete defence in defamation.

Law providing for children in conflict with law and in need of care and protection.

The Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) under Section 4 of the JJ Act, 2015 comprises a Metropolitan Magistrate or First Class Judicial Magistrate and two social workers (at least one of whom must be a woman). The JJB has exclusive jurisdiction to deal with children in conflict with the law (CICL) — those below 18 years alleged to have committed an offence. The JJB's approach is welfare-oriented: rehabilitation, reformation, and social reintegration are the primary objectives, not punishment. Maximum disposition: 3 years in a special home; death sentence, life imprisonment, and jail sentences are prohibited for children below 18. Special provision for heinous offences by children aged 16-18: the JJB may conduct a preliminary assessment and refer the case to the Children's Court for trial as an adult if it concludes the child has adult-level maturity.