The omission to include a person who ought to have been made a party to a suit, which alone cannot defeat a civil claim.
Explanation
Non-joinder refers to failure to include as a party someone who is necessary or proper for the complete adjudication of a dispute. Under Order I Rule 9 CPC, no suit shall fail by reason of misjoinder or non-joinder of parties—the court may deal with the matter in controversy as it relates to the parties before it. However, where the absent person is a necessary party whose presence is indispensable to grant relief, the court must order their joinder or risk dismissal.
Statutory Provision
Order I Rule 9, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 'No suit shall be defeated by reason of the misjoinder or non-joinder of parties, and the Court may in every suit deal with the matter in controversy so far as regards the rights and interests of the parties actually before it.'
A contractual restriction prohibiting a party from soliciting another party's employees, customers, or suppliers — often included in employment agreements, M&A deals, and business partnership agreements.
Explanation
Non-solicitation clauses restrict: (a) Employee non-solicitation — the departing employee cannot approach their former employer's employees to join a competing venture; (b) Customer non-solicitation — the departing employee/seller cannot approach former employer's/seller's customers; (c) Supplier non-solicitation — cannot approach suppliers. Unlike non-compete clauses (which prevent joining any competitor), non-solicitation clauses are more targeted — only restricting active recruitment or enticement, not passive applications from former colleagues or customers. Indian courts have been more willing to enforce non-solicitation clauses than non-compete clauses, particularly where: (a) the restrictions are limited in time and specific in scope; and (b) they protect legitimate business interests (customer relationships, business intelligence) rather than broadly preventing competition.
Statutory Provision
Section 27 ICA applies to non-solicitation clauses if they are so broadly drafted as to amount to a restraint of trade. However, well-drafted non-solicitation clauses (restricted to active solicitation, for a reasonable period) have been upheld by Indian courts as protecting legitimate business interests without unduly restricting trade. The key distinction: prohibition on actively approaching former colleagues/customers (non-solicitation) vs. prohibition on competing in the same industry (non-compete).
A rule of statutory interpretation that an ambiguous word in a statute should be interpreted by reference to the words surrounding it — a word is known by the company it keeps.
Explanation
Noscitur a sociis (Latin: 'it is known by its associates') is a contextual rule of interpretation: when a word is ambiguous or capable of multiple meanings, its meaning is determined by looking at the other words with which it is associated in the statute. Words in a statute take colour from their neighbours — an ambiguous term used alongside words of a specific type or field is interpreted to belong to the same type or field. This rule reflects the common-sense principle that language is contextual: the same word may mean different things in different contexts, and the surrounding statutory language provides the context.
Statutory Provision
No statutory definition — noscitur a sociis is a judge-made canon of interpretation. Applied by the Supreme Court in <em>Tribhuvan Prakash Nayyar v. Union of India</em> AIR 1970 SC 540 and many subsequent decisions. The rule has been consistently applied in tax cases, criminal statutes, and constitutional interpretation.
Formal communication of a fact, claim, or intention that the law requires one party to give another before taking legal action or exercising a right.
Explanation
Notice in law is the communication of information to a person in a legally prescribed manner so that they cannot claim ignorance. It serves multiple functions: it triggers limitation periods, is a precondition for certain suits, and gives the opposite party a chance to remedy the situation before litigation. Under the Transfer of Property Act, notice may be actual (express knowledge) or constructive (imputed by law). Under CPC Section 80, a two-month prior notice to the government before filing a suit is mandatory.
Statutory Provision
Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 3: 'A person is said to have notice of a fact when he actually knows that fact, or when, but for wilful abstention from an inquiry or search which he ought to have made, or gross negligence, he would have known it.'
A new intervening act that breaks the chain of causation between the defendant's negligent act and the plaintiff's harm — freeing the defendant from liability if the intervening act was unforeseeable and was the real or dominant cause of the harm.
Explanation
Novus actus interveniens (Latin: 'a new intervening act') is the principle that an unforeseeable, independent act that intervenes between the defendant's negligence and the plaintiff's harm may break the causal chain — making the intervening act the legal cause of the harm rather than the defendant's original negligence. Elements: (a) there must be an act of a third party or the plaintiff themselves; (b) the act must be independent and unforeseeable (not a natural and probable consequence of the defendant's negligence); (c) the intervening act must be the real or dominant cause of the harm. If the intervening act was foreseeable as a likely consequence of the defendant's negligence, there is no novus actus — the defendant remains liable.
Statutory Provision
No statutory provision — novus actus interveniens is a common law principle of causation in tort law. Section 104, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023 (formerly Section 104 IEA) — relationship between fact proved and fact in issue — provides the statutory foundation for causal analysis in Indian evidence law. For criminal law causation, the BNS uses causation principles in determining liability for consequences of criminal acts.
