360 Legal Research and Database

Dynamic key legal and library materials

Advocatetanmoy Law library provides free legal research platform for students, professionals, and government agencies. This online library has collected legal documents, written scholarly legal articles, analyzed government regulations, shorted Supreme Court and High Court Cases, prepared comparative studies and dictionaries.


Daily Updates


From 22 High Courts

  • Rajeev Kumar -Vs CBI, SP, Economic Offences –IV, CGO Complex-CHC 01/10/2019 - Therefore, the status of a witness is convertible to the accused during the course of investigation subject to the collection of independent sufficient incriminating materials against the petitioner, which must be in the nature of startling and clinching in sense.
  • Rajeev Kumar Vs Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) & Anr. -13/09/2019 - The very object of Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to enable the Investigating Officer to collect information from whomsoever, is found acquainted with the facts of the case in relation to which the investigation is carried out.
  • P. CHIDAMBARAM Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [DHC]-20/08/2019 - Anticipatory Bail application cancelled - Section 120B r/w Section 420 of IPC and Section 8 and Section 13 (1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the PC Act - Pre-arrest is not meant for high profile economic offenders. Time has come to recommend to the Parliament to suitably amend the Law to restrict the provisions of pre-arrest bail and make it inapplicable to economic offenders of high profile cases like the instant one.
  • Md. Sarfaraz @ Bonu & Anr. Vs- The Union of India- 09/08/2019[CHC] - Affidavit of a witness with regard to the facts in issue cannot be treated as a statement of the deponent before the Court. Hence, such affidavit cannot be treated as ‘evidence’ under […]
  • Prayer for pre-arrest bail was turned down by Apex Court granted by Calcutta High Court -13.08.2019 - Bail granted - In the matter of: Riday @ Hriday Ghosh @ Ridoy - The accused was not named in the first information report and as co-accused persons are on regular bail/anticipatory bail, we are inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
  • Tarakeswar Rewani vs The UCO Bank & Ors [CHC]-26/07/2019 - Availability of an alternative remedy does not oust the High Court’s jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition is settled law. The jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary. The relief under Article 226 being discretionary, it is for the Court to decide, whether or not to entertain an application, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
  • Dr. Bimal Kumar Raj & Ors. VS The State of West Bengal and Ors.[CHC]-26/07/2019 - Land acquisition-In a democratic polity the larger interest of the populous has to be given weightage. The minuscule minority has to understand and accept the larger and more laudable need for overall development of the district and the economy of the State. Such larger interest is in the overall Socio-Economic development of the State. Employment generation, revenue income, poverty alleviation in an entire district must be given primacy over the small personal and individual shenanigans.


British Jurisdiction
  • Schulze Allen v Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons – 1/7/2019 - The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council - In their Decision on Facts the Committee did not expressly address the issue of whether Dr Schulze Allen’s infraction was a criminal conviction. But they must have decided that it was. For otherwise they would have had no power to direct the removal of his name from the register under section 16(1)(a) of the Act.
  • Tillman v Egon Zehnder Ltd- 3/7/2019 - The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom -A company employs a business executive pursuant to a written agreement. Following the termination of her employment she wishes to become employed by a firm whose business is in competition with that of the company. The company contends that her proposed employment would breach a covenant in the agreement. She answers that the covenant is void at common law because part of it is in unreasonable restraint of trade.
  • R (on the prosecution of Wolverhampton City Council) -v- Cushman & Wakefield Debenham Tie Leung Limited – 2nd July 2019 - Crown Court at Wolverhampton - Court imposes a fine of £1,333,000 to be paid within a period now to be fixed. This is in my judgment a level of fine which represents both the seriousness of the offence and the extent to which the Company fell below the required standard, together with the relevant financial circumstances. It is also a proportionate one which is sufficiently substantial to meet the objectives of the health and safety legislation and sentencing regime.
  • Regina vs Albert William Granon- 2 July 2019 - Sheffield Crown Court-No sentence I impose can bring Stanley back. No sentence I impose can undo what you have done and heal the rifts in your family. All I can do is impose what the law considers to be the appropriate sentence for a case of this nature. I do that by following the guidelines for sentencing in cases of manslaughter.
  • Jack Sebastian Shepherd -v- The Queen – 20/6/ 2019 - COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)-The states from whom extradition is sought will recognise that breach of bail is a separate matter in the UK. With an explanation of the way in which breach will be considered by the court and on the basis that punishing those who fail to answer bail is a necessary component of an effective criminal justice system which releases most of those charged with crime rather than requiring their detention in custody. In every case the consent of the state from which extradition is sought should unequivocally be requested with an explanation of why this is necessary. If, in those circumstances, criminal proceedings have to be commenced, it should not be impracticable to start such proceedings at the time that extradition is sought.
  • The Queen (on the application of Campaign Against Arms Trade) -v- Secretary of State for International Trade and others – 20 /6/ 2019 - COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) -The Export Control Act 2002- This appeal concerns the lawfulness of the grant by the UK government of export licences for the sale or transfer of arms or military equipment to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, for possible use in the conflict in Yemen. The appeal is from the order of the High Court of 10 July 2017, which dismissed the claims of the appellant, Campaign Against the Arms Trade, (“CAAT”) for judicial review. The High Court concluded that the government decision was lawful. This is a claim for judicial review. The courts are not concerned with the merits of the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia. Different people in society will have different views on that, but that is not a matter for the courts, who are only concerned with the law and whether the decision by government was lawful.


Court Fees [Click]

  • S. Rm. Ar. S. Sp. Sathappa Chettiar Vs S. Rm. Ar. Rm. Ramanathan Chettiar -28/11/1957 - The computation of court-fees in suits falling under Section 7(iv) of the Act depends upon the valuation that the plaintiff makes in respect of his claim. Once the plaintiff exercises his option and values his claim for the purpose of court-fees, that determines the value for jurisdiction.
  • R.V. Dev alias R. Vasudevan Nair Versus Chief Secretary, Govt. of Kerala and OTHERS – 15/05/2007 - order33 -For calculation of court-fee, there does not exist any distinction between a situation attracting Rule 10 on the one hand and Rule 11 on the other. The court-fee is to be calculated on the amount claimed and not on the amount decreed. For the said purpose, what is relevant is the final decision taken by the court in this behalf. Rule 11 directing the pauper plaintiff to pay the court-fee can be made in the four different situations: (i) When the plaintiff failed in the suit. (ii) Where the plaintiff is dispaupered. (iii) Where the suit is withdrawn. (iv) Where the suit is dismissed under the circumstances specified in clause (a) or clause (b).
  • P. K. Palanisamy Versus N. Arumugham and Another- 23/07/2009 - Deficit court fee: Section 149 provides that where the whole or any part of court fee prescribed for any document has not been paid, the court may, in its discretion, at any stage, allow the person by whom such fee is payable, to pay the whole or part as the case may be, of such court fee, and upon such payment, the document in respect of which such fee is payable, shall have the same force and effect as if such court fee had been paid in the first instance. Section 4 of the court fees Act bars the court from receiving the plaint if it does not bear the proper court fee. Section 149 acts as an exception to the said bar.
  • Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Versus Randhir Singh and Others- 29/03/2010 - Cancellation of the deed: If ‘A’, the executant of the deed, seeks cancellation of the deed, he has to pay ad-valorem court fee on the consideration stated in the sale deed. If ‘B’, who is a non-executant, is in possession and sues for a declaration that the deed is null or void and does not bind him or his share, he has to merely pay a fixed court fee of ` 19.50 under Article 17(iii) of Second Schedule of the Act. But if ‘B’, a non- executant, is not in possession, and he seeks not only a declaration that the sale deed is invalid, but also the consequential relief of possession, he has to pay an ad-valorem court fee as provided under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act.
  • Satheedevi Versus Prasanna and Another-07/05/2010 - Cancellation of document: If the expression ‘value of the subject matter of the suit’ was not followed by the deeming clause, it could possibly be argued that the word ‘value’ means the market value, but by employing the deeming clause, the legislature has made it clear that if the document is sought to be cancelled, the amount of court fee shall be computed on the value of the property for which the document was executed and not the market value of the property.