Law in one Paragraph

Associated Hotels of India Ltd. v. R.N. Kapoor [AIR 1959 SC 1262] Test to determine whether a document creates a licence or lease 28. The following propositions may, therefore, be taken as well established : (1) To ascertain whether a document creates a licence or lease, the substance of the document must be preferred to […]

Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. vs. SPML Infra Limited, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2541 Court can extend the mandate of the arbitral tribunal even if application for the same is filed post expiry of the time 17. Thus, in view of the legal position enunciated in Rohan Builders (supra) and Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the fact that the

National Highways Authority of India vs. HK Toll Road Pvt. Ltd. [2025 SCC OnLine Del 2376] Amendment of 2018 in SRA operates retrospectively and not prospectively 80. In Siddamsetty Infra Projects (P) Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in review jurisdiction recalled the aforesaid judgment i.e. Katta Sujatha Reddy (supra) and restored the judgment passed by the High Court therein.

National Highways Authority of India vs. HK Toll Road Pvt. Ltd. [2025 SCC OnLine Del 2376] No injunction can be granted when the contract is determinable in nature 96. In view of the settled law and for the reasons recorded above, I have no hesitation to hold that the Agreement in question is a determinable

MK Harshan vs. State of Kerala [(1996) 11 SCC 720] No tacit approval shown in putting of bribe money in drawer 8. In the light of these conflicting versions and suspicious features on this crucial aspect, the plea of the accused that the notes were put in the drawer without his knowledge, does not appear

State of Maharashtra vs. Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede [(2009) 15 SCC 200] Essentials to prove in illegal gratification cases 16. Indisputably, the demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for constitution of an offence under the provisions of the Act. For arriving at the conclusion as to whether all the ingredients of an

CM Girish Babu vs. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala [(2009) 3 SCC 779] Presumption to be drawn u/s 20 in corruption cases is not an inviolable one 21. It is well settled that the presumption to be drawn under Section 20 is not an inviolable one. The accused charged with the offence could rebut

Suraj Mal vs State (Delhi Administration) [1979 (4) SCC 725] Mere recovery of money by itself cannot prove the charge of bribe 2. In our opinion, mere recovery of money divorced from the circumstances under which it is paid is not sufficient to convict the accused when the substantive evidence in the case is not

Shaileshbhai vs. St. of Gujarat [Criminal Appeal No. 1884/2013] FIR can be quashed despite filing of charge-sheet by the investigating officer 7. The question of law involved in these two appeals as to whether quashing of the FIR should have been refused for no other reason than that the investigating officer has filed the charge-sheet

Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab and Another [(2005) 6 SCC 1] Difference between negligence under civil law and criminal law 12. The term “negligence” is used for the purpose of fastening the defendant with liability under the civil law and, at times, under the criminal law. It is contended on behalf of the respondents