This page contains notable observations of different Courts of India and abroad which is a settled law now.
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 counterallegations, 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)(ia) is to be
A. Jayachandra vs. Aneel Kaur [(2005) 2 SCC 22]: Supreme Court of India Cruelty is something more than ordinary wear and tear of married life 12. To constitute cruelty, the conduct complained of should be ‘grave and weighty’ so as to come to the conclusion that the petitioner spouse cannot be reasonably expected to live
Cruelty is something more than ordinary wear and tear of married life Read More »
West Bengal State Electricity Board vs. Dilip Kumar Ray [AIR 2007 SC 976]: Supreme Court of India Malice is not merely the doing a wrongful act intentionally but it must be established that the defendant was actuated by mains animus i.e. improper motive 14. Malicious Prosecution – Malice. Malice means an improper or indirect motive
Raj Talreja vs. Kavita Talreja [AIR 2017 SC 2138]: Supreme Court of India Mere filing of complaints is not cruelty, if there are justifiable reasons to file the complaints 10. Cruelty can never be defined with exactitude. What is cruelty will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, from
Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd [AIR 1962 SC 361]: Supreme Court of India For delay to be condoned, the party will have to show sufficient cause not only for not filing the appeal on the last day but to explain the delay made thereafter day by day 8. Now, what do the
