Law in one Paragraph

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

CBI v. V.C. Shukla [(1998) 3 SCC 410] Admission vis-à-vis confession  44. Lastly, comes the question whether the entries are “admissions” within the meaning of Section 17 of the Act so as to be admissible as relevant evidence under Section 21; and if so, as against whom can the entries be proved. In Section 17

Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani, (1978) 2 SCC 424 Legal perils do not make a testimony compelled and violate Article 20(3) 57. We hold that Section 161 enables the police to examine the accused during investigation. The prohibitive sweep of Article 20(3) goes back to the stage of police interrogation — not, as contended, commencing

Youth Bar Association vs. Union of India [(2016) 9 SCC 473] Directions of the Supreme Court providing copy of FIR to the accused and uploading it on the internet 12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we think it appropriate to record the requisite conclusions and, thereafter, proceed to issue the directions:- (a) An

Anant Construction (P) Ltd. vs Ram Niwas [1994 (31) DRJ 205] Replication and principles governing it 14. Decided cases in India use the term rejoinder loosely for a reply or replication filed by the plaintiff in answer to the defendant’s plea. Strictly speaking a reply filed by the plaintiff (when permissible) is a replication. A