Law in one Paragraph

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

Babu Singh and Ors. vs. Ram Sahai [AIR 2008 SC 2485]: Supreme Court of India When genuineness of a Will is in question, apart from execution and attestation of Will, person averring validity of the Will to dispel the surrounding suspicious circumstances ‘Attestation’ and ‘execution’ connote two different meanings. Some documents do not require attestation.

Chankaya vs. State and Ors. [MANU/DE/2995/2019]: Delhi High Court Will should be signed in presence of attesting witnesses and they shall attest in presence of the testator 21. Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act provides that an unprivileged Will is to be attested by two or more witnesses each of whom has seen the

Kailash vs. Nanku & Ors. [(2005) 4 SCC 480]: Supreme Court of India Time prescribed for filing of written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 is not mandatory 23. Three things are clear. Firstly, a careful reading of the language in which Order VIII, Rule 1 has been drafted, shows that it casts an obligation

State of Goa vs. Praveen Enterprises [AIR 2011 SC 3814]: Supreme Court of India The term “all disputes” gives the Tribunal a very wide jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal 10. Reference to arbitration can be in respect of all disputes between the parties or all disputes regarding a contract or in respect of specific enumerated

State of Goa vs. Praveen Enterprises [AIR 2011 SC 3814]: Supreme Court of India The limitation period for counter-claim is calculated as on the date of filing of counter-claim unless such notice of arbitration for such claim has been given earlier 17. As far as counter claims are concerned, there is no room for ambiguity