Law in one Paragraph

Raghunathrao Ganpatrao vs. Union of India [1994 Supp (1) SCC 191]: Supreme Court of India Repudiation of the right to privy purse privileges and validity of 26th amendment 96. Permanent retention of the privy purse and the privileges of rights would be incompatible with the sovereign and republican form of Government. Such a retention will […]

Angurbala Mullick vs. Debvbrata Mullick [AIR 1951 SC 293]: Supreme Court of India Position of Shebait in India in relation to property gifted to deity 13. The exact legal position of a shebait may not be capable of precise definition but its implications are fairly well established. It is settled by the pronouncement of the

Vidya Varuthi Thirtha Swamigal vs. Balusami Ayyar and Ors [(1922) 24 BOMLR 629]: Bombay High Court Gift to idol / deity in Hindu system and position of a trustee 11. It is also to be remembered that a “trust,” in the sense in which the expression is used in English law, is unknown in the

Maru Ram vs. Union of India and Others [(1981) 1 SCC 107]: Supreme Court of India Relationship between section 433-A of CrPC and Article 72 and 161 of the Constitution dealing with short sentencing of prisoners 72. We conclude by formulating our findings: (1) We repulse all the thrusts on the vires of Section 433-A.

R. Muthukrishnan vs. The Registrar General of the High Court of Judicature at Madras [Writ Petition (C) No.612 of 2016]: Supreme Court of India Role of Lawyers and their professional ethics 23. The role of Lawyer is indispensable in the system of delivery of justice. He is bound by the professional ethics and to maintain

Shri Kampher Mark Swer vs State of Meghalaya And Ors, [WP(C). No. 339 of 2014]: High Court of Meghalaya Tests for determining existence of personal bias  16. There is no straitjacket formula in a case of personal bias, for deciding, if, there is personal bias or not. But acceptable tests are (i) the real likelihood

Kshitish Chandra Purkait vs. Santosh Kumar Purkait [(1997) 5 SCC 438]: Supreme Court of India Formulation of substantial question of law is mandatory for High Court under section 100 of CPC 10. We would only add that (a) it is the duty cast upon the High Court to formulate the substantial question of law involved

Bhoop Singh vs. Ram Singh Major & Ors. [(1995) 5 SCC 709]: Supreme Court of India Conditions for recognition of compromise decree for effective mode of transfer 18. The legal position qua clause (vi) can, on the basis   of   the   aforesaid   discussion, be   summarised   as below: (1)  Compromise decree if bona fide, in the sense

J.P. Srivastava & Sons Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. vs. M/s. Gwalior Sugar Co. Ltd. and Ors. [AIR 2005 SC 83]: Supreme Court of India Object of prescribing a qualifying percentage of shares in petitioners and their supporters to file petitions under Sections 397 and 398 47. The object of prescribing a qualifying percentage of shares

J.P. Srivastava & Sons Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. vs. M/s. Gwalior Sugar Co. Ltd. and Ors. [AIR 2005 SC 83]: Supreme Court of India Object of prescribing a qualifying percentage of shares in petitioners and their supporters to file petitions under Sections 397 and 398 47. The object of prescribing a qualifying percentage of shares