This page contains notable observations of different Courts of India and abroad which is a settled law now.
The State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta [AIR 1952 SC 12] Grant of final relief as interim relief In The State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta [AIR 1952 SC 12], a Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court clearly spelt out the contours within which interim relief can be granted, and held as […]
Grant of final relief as interim relief Read More »
Ramesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 8819 of 2022] Under what circumstances can the Court interfere in cases of administrative law-making – Wednesbury principle 42. In the case of Associated Provincial Picture Houses Limited v. Wednesbury Corporation ([1948] 1 KB 22), the King’s Bench Division was
Kishor Ghanshyamsa Paralikar (D) through Lrs. vs. Balaji Mandir Sansthan Mangrul (Nath) & Another [Civil Appeal No. 3794/2022] A court retains control over a suit for specific performance even after passing a decree 11. This section gives to the vendor or the lessor the right to rescission of the contract for the sale or lease
A court retains control over a suit for specific performance even after passing a decree Read More »
Electrosteel Castings Ltd v. UV Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd Ors, [(2022) 2 SCC 573] Allegation of fraud must be precise and specific 7.2. However, it is required to be noted that except the words used ‘fraud’/’fraudulent’ there are no specific particulars pleaded with respect to the ‘fraud’. It appears that by a clever drafting and
Allegation of fraud must be precise and specific Read More »
Shriram EPC Limited vs. Rioglass Solar SA [AIR 2018 SC 4539] Whether unstamped foreign award could validly be enforced under Sections 48 and 49 of Act? 23. There is no doubt whatsoever that if stamp duties are leviable in India on foreign awards, the imposition should not be substantially more onerous than the stamp duty
Nedunuri Kameswaramma v. Sampati Subba Rao [AIR 1963 SC 884] Non-framing is an issue not fatal when parties went to trial knowing the rival case and leading all the evidence 5. …No doubt, no issue was framed, and the one, which was framed, could have been more elaborate; but since the parties went to trial
Chhaganlal v. Narandas [(1982) 2 SCR 166] Rule of estoppel under section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act Estoppel deals with questions of facts and not of right. A man is not estopped from asserting a right which he had said that he will not assert. It is also a well-known principle that there can
Rule of estoppel under section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act Read More »
Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur [(2019) 8 SCC 729] Adverse possession requires all the three classic requirements to co-exist at the same time 60. The adverse possession requires all the three classic requirements to co-exist at the same time, namely, nec vi i.e. adequate in continuity, nec clam i.e. adequate in publicity and nec
T. Anjanappa v. Somalingappa [(2006) 7 SCC 570] Adverse possession contemplates a hostile possession i.e. a possession which is expressly or impliedly in denial of the title of the true owner 12. The concept of adverse possession contemplates a hostile possession i.e. a possession which is expressly or impliedly in denial of the title of
Adverse possession contemplates a hostile possession Read More »
Prakash Corporates vs. Dee Vee Projects Limited [(2022) 5 SCC 112] Whether the opportunity of filing written statement in the subject suit could be extended further relaxation in view of the orders passed and issued in the wake of COVID-19 pandemic? 25.2.1 It is thus beyond cavil that if the prescribed period for any suit/appeal/application
