Law in one Paragraph

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 […]

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

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

South Indian Bank Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [Civil Appeal No. 9606 of 2011] In taxation regime, there is no room for presumption and nothing can be taken to be implied 29. In the above context, the following saying of Adam Smith in his seminal work – The Wealth of Nations may aptly be

State of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal Secretary & Ors. vs. Seema Sharma [Civil Appeal No. 3892 of 2022] Equal pay for equal work could only be invoked when the employees were similarly circumstanced in every way 18. In Ramesh Chandra Bajpai (supra), this Court further held that it was well-settled that the doctrine of equal

M.E. Shivalingamurthy v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Bengaluru [(2020) 2 SCC 768] Principles for discharge under section 227 of the CrPC 17.1. If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge would be empowered to discharge the accused. 17.2. The trial Judge

R. Unnikrishnan & Anr vs V.K. Mahanudevan & Ors [ 2014 (4) SCC 434] Even erroneous decisions can operate as res-judicata 15. It is trite that law favours finality to binding judicial decisions pronounced by Courts that are competent to deal with the subject matter. Public interest is against individuals being vexed twice over with

Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre VS. State of Maharashtra [(2011) 1 SCC 694] Arrest should be the last option and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases 90. A great ignominy, humiliation and disgrace is attached to the arrest. Arrest leads to many serious consequences not only for the accused but for the entire family and

Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab [(1980) 2 SCC 565] Bail is not to be withheld as a punishment 27. It is not necessary to refer to decisions which deal with the right to ordinary bail because that right does not furnish an exact parallel to the right to anticipatory bail. It is,