Law in one Paragraph

S. Rama Krishna vs S. Rami Reddy (D) By His Lrs. [2008 (5) SCC 535] Complainant cannot allow a case to remain pending for an indefinite period The conduct of the complainant for the said purpose is of immense significance. He cannot allow a case to remain pending for an indefinite period. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   High […]

Kasturi vs. Uyyamperumal and Ors. [(2005) 6 SCC 733] Who is a necessary party? It is now clear that two tests are to be satisfied for determining the question 3 who is a necessary party. Tests are – (1) there must be a right to some relief against such party in respect of the controversies

K. Meghachandra Singh & Ors. vs. Ningam Siro & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 8833-8835 of 2019] Retrospective seniority should not be granted from a day when an employee is not even borne in the cadre 29. Before proceeding to deal with the contention of the appellants’ Counsel vis-à-vis the judgment in N.R. Parmar (Supra), it

Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. and Ors. vs. Owners and Parties, Vessel M.V. Fortune Express and Ors. [AIR 2006 SC 1828] Plaint cannot be rejected on the basis of the allegations made by the defendant in his written statement or in application for rejection of the plaint 8. …… The case is not so much on the

Variety Emporium vs. V.R.M. Mohd. Ibrahim Naina [(1985) 1 SCC 251] Personal requirement for ejectment of a tenant must continue to exist on the date when the proceeding is finally disposed 16. No authority is needed for the proposition that, in appropriate cases, the Court must have regard to events as they present themselves at

Santosh Hazari vs. Purushottam Tiwari [(2001) 3SCC 179] What is the substantial question of law? 14. A point of law which admits of no two opinions may be a proposition of law but cannot be a substantial question of law. To be substantial, a question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by law

C. Doddanarayana Reddy (Dead) By Lrs. & Ors. vs. C. Jayarama Reddy (Dead) By Lrs. & Ors., [Civil Appeal No. 2165 of 2009] Concurrent finding of the fact is binding subject to certain exceptions 28. Recently in another judgment reported as State of Rajasthan v. Shiv Dayal, (2019) 8 SCC 637, it was held that

Tarsem Kumar vs. Delhi Administration [(1994) Supp 3 SCC 367] Where the case of the prosecution has been proved beyond all reasonable doubts on basis of the materials produced before the court, the motive loses its importance 8. Normally, there is a motive behind every criminal act and that is why investigating agency as well

Rosy Jacob vs. Jacob A.J. Chakramakkal [1973 (1) SCC 840] Custody orders are temporary in nature and the principle of estoppel does not apply “18. The appellant’s argument based on estoppel and on the orders made by the court under the Indian Divorce Act with respect to the custody of the children did not appeal to us.

Surinder Kaur Sandhu vs. Harbax Singh Sandhu and Anr. [(1984) 3 SCC 698] Jurisdiction is not attracted by the operation or creation of fortuitous circumstances The boy is a British citizen, having been born in England, and he holds a British passport. It cannot be controverted that, in these circumstances, the English Court had jurisdiction