This page contains notable observations of different Courts of India and abroad which is a settled law now.
Dwaraka Das v. State of M.P and Another [(1999) 3 SCC 500]: Supreme Court of India Section 152 C.P.C. provides for correction of clerical arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission. It is not a power to review a judgement/decree or order. 6. Section 152 […]
State of Gujarat and Anr. vs. Shri Ambika Mills Ltd., Ahmedabad [(1974) 4 SCC 656]: Supreme Court of India A reasonable classification is one which includes all who are similarly situated 52. It would be an idle parade of familiar learning to review the multitudinous cases in which the constitutional assurance of equality before the
A reasonable classification is one which includes all who are similarly situated Read More »
The State of West Bengal vs. Anwar Ali Sarkar [AIR 1952 SC 75]: Supreme Court of India Offences or cases cannot be classified in two categories on the basis of the preamble alone 62. I have already stated that this part of the sub section contemplates a process of classification of “offences”, “classes of offences”
Krishna Kumar Singh vs. State of Bihar [(2017) 3 SCC 1]: Supreme Court of India Necessity is distinguished from a mere desirability while promulgating an Ordinance 27. The authority which is conferred upon the Governor to promulgate Ordinances is conditioned by two requirements. The first is that an Ordinance can be promulgated only when the
Necessity is distinguished from a mere desirability while promulgating an Ordinance Read More »
Budhan Choudhry vs. The State of Bihar [(1955) 1 S.C.R. 1045]: Supreme Court of India Article 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation 5. It is now well established that while article 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation.
Rajinder Pershad (Dead) by L.rs. vs. Darshana Devi [AIR 2001 SC 3207]: Supreme Court of India If you dispute the correctness of the statement of a witness you must give him opportunity to explain his statement by drawing his attention to that part 3. There is an age old rule that if you dispute the
In Re: Special Reference No. 1 of 2012 [(2012) 9 SCR 311]: Supreme Court of India Auction is an economic choice of disposal of natural resources and is not a constitutional mandate WHETHER ‘ AUCTION ‘ A CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE: 146. To summarize in the context of the present Reference, it needs to be emphasized that
Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta Congress and Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [AIR 2011 SC 1834]: Supreme Court of India The State can allot land to educational, social, cultural, philanthropic societies without auction too in certain circumstances 28. It can no longer be doubted at this point of time that Article of the Constitution of India
Ramana Dayaram of India Shetty vs. International Airport Authority [AIR 1979 SC 1628]: Supreme Court of India Where the Government is dealing with distribution of largesse it cannot act arbitrarily and its act must not be arbitrary, irrational or irrelevant 11. To-day the Government, is a welfare State, is the regulator and dispenser of special
The State (Tamil Nadu) vs. Veerappan And Ors. [AIR 1980 Mad 260]: Madras High Court If after due service, the witness does not appear before the Court, the Court should issue coercive processes 13. We shall now proceed to indicate the powers which the Magistrate could exercise and the steps he could take under the Criminal
The Bar Council of India does not permit solicitation of work and advertising by legal practitioners and advocates. By accessing the Litigating Hand website (our website), the user acknowledges that:
