The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the right of the board to appeal in High Court as the right to appeal was available to the respondent at the time of initiation of the dispute before the amendment which wasn’t preserved thereof...
The Court first clarified the word "property" used in Section 17 and held that it includes properties. The court reiterated that interpretation of word "portion of the property" cannot only be understood in a limited and restrictive sense of being po..
By examining the case, the High Court reversed it’s decision on the judgment which was already given by the Trial Court, stating that the Learned trial court interpreted Section 10 wrongly, as the plaintiff has taken all measures in issuing letters a..
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the High Court that the civil court didn’t have the territorial jurisdiction to try the said suit...
Delhi High court didn’t have the jurisdiction and the appeal is dismissed...
The court held that the High court should not have shown indulgence of such magnitude by adjourning the matter when the counsel for the appellant was not present. It is difficult to envision why the Court directed fresh notice to the appellant when t..
In a well-balanced, well-reasoned, well-analysed and well-articulated judgment, the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Abhishek Kumar Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh in Cr.MP(M) No. 1017 of 2020 delivered on July 30, 2020 has made it absolutely cle..
In a remarkable, righteous and recent judgment titled “Shailendra Swarup vs The Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate” in Criminal Appeal No. 2463 of 2014 delivered just recently on July 27, 2020, the Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justice Asho..
In a recent, remarkable and righteous decision delivered on July 28, 2020, the Apex Court in Parminder Kaur @ P.P. Kaur @ Soni vs State of Punjab in Criminal Appeal No. 283 of 2011 has made it abundantly clear that once a plausible version has been p..
It is most heartening and most refreshing to learn that the Tripura High Court just recently on July 30, 2020 in a notable judgment titled Karnajit De vs. The State of Tripura in AB 87/2020 made no bones in making an important observation in simple ..
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the High Court that the civil court didn't have the territorial jurisdiction to try the said suit...
In a recent, remarkable and righteous decision titled Medipol Pharmaceutical India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research in Civil Appeal No. 2903 of 2020 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 26349 of 2019) delivered on August 5..
It is quite refreshing and quite reassuring to see that in a recent, remarkable and righteous decision titled "Savitri vs. State of Haryana and others" in Case No. – CRWP-5238-2020 (O&M) delivered on August 19, 2020, a two Judge Bench of the Punjab a..
While dismissing a petition challenging the ban on army officers using social media, the Delhi High Court in Lt Col PK Choudhary Vs Union of India & Ors. in W.P.(C) No. 4181/2020 delivered via video conferencing on August 5, 2020 has observed in no u..
The Supreme Court overruled some judgments which did not lay down the law correctly and held that plea of acquisition of title by adverse possession can be taken by plaintiff under Article 65 of the Limitation Act and there is no bar under the Limita..
The court held that there are two tests to be satisfied for determining the question of who is a necessary party. They are: 1. There must be a right to some relief against such party in respect of the controversies involved in the proceedings 2. No..
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. The jurisdiction of other courts has not been excluded in the contract...
The Three Judge Bench mentioned that the court has to take into consideration the outer limit for filing the counterclaim, which is pegged till the issues are framed. In such cases the Courts have the discretion to entertain filing of the counterclai..
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the impugned judgement of HC. There is no bar to file an application under Order 1 Rule 10 when application under Order 22 Rule 4 has been dismissed...
It was held by the court that the time for filing the written statement could not be extended as nothing prevented the appellant from filing the written statement through counsel or in person. He has, thus, failed to give any cogent reason for the de..
Member Strength 9,50,339 and growing..
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
