What is the difference between set-off and counter-claim?

 What is the difference between set-off and counter-claim?


 The difference between set-off and counter-claim lies in their nature and purpose in legal proceedings:


O 8 R 6 of CPC provides for set off:


Set-off: Set-off refers to the adjustment or cancellation of mutual debts or claims between parties involved in a legal dispute. It allows a defendant to reduce or eliminate their liability by setting off a claim they have against the plaintiff. In other words, it is a defense mechanism used by the defendant to counterbalance the plaintiff's claim by asserting their own claim against the plaintiff.


 The purpose of set-off is to achieve a fair and equitable resolution of the dispute by considering the mutual claims between the parties.


O 8 R 6-A of CPC provides for counter claim:


Counter-claim: A counter-claim is a separate claim made by the defendant against the plaintiff in response to the plaintiff's original claim.Defendant can make counter claim regarding any right or claim in respect of a cause of action accruing to him against plaintiff either before or after filing of the suit.Unlike set-off, a counter-claim is an independent cause of action and seeks a remedy or relief against the plaintiff. The purpose of a counter-claim is to allow the defendant to assert their own claim and seek redress for any harm or injury caused by the plaintiff.


In summary, set-off is a defense mechanism used by the defendant to offset their liability by asserting a claim against the plaintiff, while a counter-claim is a separate claim made by the defendant against the plaintiff seeking relief or damages. Both set-off and counter-claim serve different purposes in legal proceedings and allow parties to assert their rights and claims in a fair and balanced manner.


Bharath L

Advocate

High court of Karnataka, Bangalore

9844734166

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Whether Issuing a Blank Cheque under Indian Law: Legal Validity, Section 138, and Judicial Precedents

  Whether Issuing a Blank Cheque under Indian Law: Legal Validity, Section 138, and Judicial Precedents Issuing a blank cheque , where only the signature is affixed and all other particulars are left blank, is a common practice in many business and personal transactions in India. While this might seem risky at first glance, Indian law has laid down clear principles regarding the legality and implications of such instruments. Is Issuing a Blank Cheque Legal? Yes, issuing a blank cheque is legally valid if the cheque is signed and voluntarily handed over to the payee , with authorization to fill in the remaining details, such as the amount and date. This practice is covered under Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 , which recognizes the authority of a holder in due course to complete an inchoate instrument. Relevance of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act Section 138 deals with the dishonour of cheques due to insufficiency of funds or stop payment instructio...
Read more

Sec 138 and 139 under NI act

Sec 138 and 139 under NI act Section 138: Dishonour of Cheque for Insufficiency, etc., of Funds This section deals with the criminal offense of cheque dishonour (bouncing). If a cheque is returned unpaid due to insufficient funds in the drawer's account or for other specified reasons, the drawer can face legal action. Punishment for Section 138: If a person is found guilty of an offence under Section 138, they can be punished with: Imprisonment: A term of imprisonment which may extend to two years, or Fine: A fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or Both: Both imprisonment and fine. Key points related to Section 138: Criminal Offence: Cheque bounce under Section 138 is a criminal offense, providing a strong deterrent. Conditions for Offence: For an offence to be made out, certain conditions must be met: The cheque must have been issued for the discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability. The cheque must be presented to the bank within its period of valid...
Read more

When Sale Deed Is Void, Suit For Possession Governed By Limitation Period Of 12 Years Under Article 65 Instead Of Art 59 : Supreme Court.

  When Sale Deed Is Void, Suit For Possession Governed By Limitation Period Of 12 Years Under Article 65 Instead Of Art 59 : Supreme Court. Cause Title: SHANTI DEVI (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. GORAN VERSUS JAGAN DEVI & ORS. The Supreme Court on Friday (Sep.12) held that a suit instituted seeking possession of immovable property on the ground that the defendant's sale deed is void is governed by the 12-year limitation period under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, rather than the shorter 3-year period under Article 59 of the Act. A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan clarified that where possession is claimed over property by the defendant based on a forged and void sale deed, he suit can be filed within 12 years, as such possession is treated as adverse to the plaintiff. “Therefore, the plaintiff could indeed have maintained an action to obtain possession of the property on the basis of her title and filed the same within the period of 12 years from the da...
Read more