Law in one Paragraph

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 […]

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

N. Balakirshnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy [(1998) 7 SCC 123]: Supreme Court of India Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion for condonation of a delay 9. It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the court Section 5 of the Limitation Act does

Basawaraj & Anr vs. Land Acquisition Officer [(2013) 14 SCC 81]: Supreme Court of India Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes 12. “It is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular

Sakshi vs. Union of India [AIR 2004 SC 3566]: Supreme Court of India Section 273 of the Cr.P.C. merely requires the evidence to be taken in the presence of the accused and this does not mean evidence cannot be recorded through video conferencing 31. The whole inquiry before a Court being to elicit the truth, it is

Smt. Kuldip Kaur vs. Surinder Singh And Anr. [AIR 1989 SC 232]: Supreme Court of India Sentencing a person to jail is a “mode of enforcement” and it is not a “mode of satisfaction” of the liability 6. A distinction has to be drawn between a mode of enforcing recovery on the one hand and

P. Vaithi vs. Kanagavalli [2010 (1) LW (Crl.) 574]: Madras High Court Though limitation period for recovery of maintenance under section 125(3) of CrPC is one year, section 128 does not prescribe any such limitation 6. After an order is passed directing to pay maintenance, the party in whose favour such an order has been

K.K. Velusamy vs. N. Palanisamy [(2011) 11 SCC 275]: Supreme Court of India The court is satisfied that non-production earlier was for valid reasons, the court may recall the witnesses or permit the fresh evidence even after closing of evidence 11. The Code earlier had a specific provision in Order 18 Rule 17A for production