Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is a procedural law related to the administration of civil proceedings in India.. The Code is divided into two parts: the first part contains 158 sections and the second part contains the First Schedule, which has 51 Orders and Rules.
Subject-matter jurisdiction, also called jurisdiction ratione materiae, [1] is a legal doctrine regarding the ability of a court to lawfully hear and adjudicate a case. . Subject-matter relates to the nature of a case; whether it is criminal, civil, whether it is a state issue or a federal issue, and other substantive features of th
Pecuniary jurisdiction of the court divides the court vertically. The monetary limit, i.e. the suit value that is triable by a particular class of civil court is provided under the Orissa Civil Courts Act. The pecuniary limit triable in the courts of a civil judge is Rs.50,000, whereas the courts of senior civil judge can try higher-valued suits.
Concurrent jurisdiction in the United States can also exist between different levels of state courts, and between courts and other government agencies with judicial powers. Different countries can also share concurrent jurisdiction over a case, where different countries have authority over the parties or events giving rise to the cause of action.
Civil and criminal cases are usually heard in different courts. In jurisdictions based on English common-law systems, the party bringing a criminal charge (in most cases, the state) is called the "prosecution", but the party bringing most forms of civil action is the "plaintiff" or "claimant". In both kinds of action the other party is known as ...
The civil court/district court is judged by the district and sessions judge who is the judicial head of a district with a limited control over administration also. It is the principal court of original civil jurisdiction besides the high court of the state and which derives its jurisdiction in civil matters primarily from the Code of Civil ...
As such, the exercise of inherent jurisdiction is a broad doctrine allowing a court to control its own processes and to control the procedures before it. The power stems not from any particular statute or legislation, but rather from inherent powers invested in a court to control the proceedings brought before it.
The determination of the court may not be arbitrary or abusive as this is a drastic remedy to be applied with caution and restraint. As for the transfer of a trial to a jurisdiction outside of the U.S., courts will only grant the transfer if a foreign court is “more appropriate”, and there may be a real opportunity to obtain justice there.