Law in one Paragraph

R.K. Garg vs. Union of India [(1981) 4 SCC 675]: Supreme Court of India There is always a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of a statute and the burden is upon him who attacks it to show that there has been a clear transgression of the constitutional principles 7. Now while considering the constitutional […]

Goan Real Estate and Construction Limited & another vs. Union of India & others [(2010) 5 SCC 388]: Supreme Court of India Determination of whether a judgement will have prospective or retrospective effect  34. It is pertinent to note that while interpreting the judgment, public interest should be taken into consideration. In Managing Director, ECIL,

Ch. Papanna vs. The Personnel Manager, State Bank [1995 (2) ALT 358]: Andhra High Court Over-qualification is not prescribed as a bar for consideration of appointment 17. Thus, it is manifest from the above decisions that where over-qualification is not prescribed as a bar for consideration of appointment and if the candidature is rejected on

M.P. State Coop. Bank Ltd., Bhopal vs. Nanuram Yadav and Others [(2007) 8 SCC 264]: Supreme Court of India Principles to be noted in matter of public appointments 24. It is clear that in the matter of public appointments, the following principles are to be followed: (1)  The appointments made without following the appropriate procedure

Avitel Post Studioz Limited and vs Hsbc Pi Holding (Mauritius) [CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5145 OF 2016]: Supreme Court of India Principles apply in assessing the damages payable where the plaintiff has been induced by a fraudulent misrepresentation to buy property 19. In this judgment of Lord Browne-Wilkinson, a useful summary of the principles that apply

Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (P) Ltd., [(2010) 8 SCC 24]: Supreme Court of India Categories of cases are normally considered to be not suitable for ADR process 27. The following categories of cases are normally considered to be not suitable for ADR process having regard to their nature: (i) Representative suits

Food Corporation of India vs. Cletus [MANU/KE/0799/2007]: Kerala High Court Scope of Article 226 is limited and court is not expected to make a roving enquiry on appointments 8. Zonal officers who manned the offices at the relevant time had exercised their discretion in a particular manner, some refusing the request for relaxation of educational

S.C. Bagari vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. [MANU/HP/0143/1993]: Himachal Pradesh High Court Arbitrariness can take many forms and shapes but whatever form or shape it takes, it is nonetheless discrimination 20. Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees equal protection of State action. The guarantee of equal protection embraces within it the entire realm

Muppudathi Pillai vs. Krishnaswami Pillai [AIR 1960 Mad 1]: Madras High Court The remedy under S. 39 is to remove a cloud upon the title, by removing a potential danger but it does not envisage an adjudication between competing titles 12. The principle is that such document though not necessary to be set aside may,

Suhrid Singh v. Randhir Singh, [(2010) 12 SCC 112]: Supreme Court of India Relief of executant and non-executant against a deed and payment of amount of court fee 7. Where the executant of a deed wants it to be annulled, he has to seek cancellation of the deed. But if a non-executant seeks annulment of