This page contains notable observations of different Courts of India and abroad which is a settled law now.
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 Ā»
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
R. Srinivas Kumar vs. R. Shametha [Civil Appeal No. 4696 OF 2013]: Supreme Court of India The Supreme Court can under Article 142 of the Constitution of India dissolve a marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage 5. A similar view has been expressed in the case of Samar Ghosh (supra). In the
V. Bhagat vs. D. Bhagat [AIR 1994 SC 710]: Supreme Court of India Merely because there are allegations and counterĀallegations, a decree of divorce cannot follow 10. Another circumstance to be kept in mind is that even where the marriage has irretrievably broken down, the Act, even after the 1976 (Amendment) Act, does not permit
Ramchander vs. Ananta [(2015) 11 SCC 539]: Supreme Court of India Instances of cruelty are not to be taken in isolation but to take the cumulative effect of the facts and circumstances 10. “The expression ‘cruelty’ has not been defined in the Hindu Marriage Act. Cruelty for the purpose of Section 13(1)(iĀa) is to be
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:
