Day: April 16, 2018

Sri Samarendra Nath Das @ Samar Das Versus M/s. Bengal Central Building Society Limited and others[ALL HC CALCUTTA 2015 MAY]

advtanmoy 16/04/2018

KEYWORDS:-THIKA TENANCY- JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURT- DATE:-6th May, 2015 In the High Court at Calcutta Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Present: The Hon’ble Justice Nishita Mhatre And The Hon’ble Justice Asha Arora F.M.A No. 761 of 2015 With C.A.N No. 1543 of 2015 Sri Samarendra Nath Das @ Samar Das Versus M/s. Bengal Central Building Society Limited and others For the appellant: Mr. Biswajit Basu, Mr. Kishore Mukherjee, Mr. […]

Ashok Kumar Mandal Appellant Versus Rabindra Nath Banerjee (D) by LRs. and Others[ALL SC 2003 DECEMBER]

advtanmoy 16/04/2018

KEYWORDS:- DATE:-03-12-2003 (2004) 10 SCC 578 (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Ashok Kumar Mandal Appellant Versus Rabindra Nath Banerjee (D) by LRs. and Others Respondent (Before : Brijesh Kumar and Arun Kumar, JJ.) Decided On: 03-12-2003 Calcutta thika tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981—Sections 5 and 19. ORDER 1. This appeal is preferred against the order of the Calcutta High Court […]

Narayan Chandra Ghosh and ORS Vs Kanailal Ghosh and ORS – 16/11/2005

advtanmoy 16/04/2018

Thika tenant-the provisions of the Premises tenancy Act would apply to Bharatias. Such suits cannot be effectively disposed of after the commencement of 1981 Act as earlier it was not necessary to prove the grounds for eviction enumerated under the Premises tenancy Act and the Bharatia would be thereby denied the protection granted to him under the Premises tenancy Act although he was entitled to such protection even in pending suits.

Uma Pandey & ANR. Vs. Munna Pandey & Ors.[ALL SC 2018 APRIL]

advtanmoy 16/04/2018

KEYWORDS:-partition and separate possession-SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW-EXHIBIT- DATE:-April 09, 2018 It is a settled principle of law that interpretation of any document including its contents or its admissibility in evidence or its effect on the rights of the parties to the Lis constitutes a substantial question(s) of law within the meaning of Section 100 of the Code. Document recognizing a […]

S.V. Asgaonkar & Ors. Vs. The Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority & Ors.[ALL SC 2018 APRIL]

advtanmoy 16/04/2018

KEYWORDS:- LAND ALLOTMENT DATE:- APRIL 09, 2018. ACTS:- Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority Act, 1974 & Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (Disposal of Land) Regulations SUPREME COURT OF INDIA S.V. Asgaonkar & Ors. Vs. The Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 3488 of 2018 arising out of SLP (C) No.26056 of 2012] ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. 1. This appeal has […]

Sanjay Kumar Sinha Vs. Asha Kumari & ANR.[ALL SC 2018 APRIL]

advtanmoy 16/04/2018

KEYWORDS:-  Divorce- pendente lite- DATE:- April 09, 2018 ACTS:- Section 13 AND 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Consequent upon passing of the maintenance order dated 15.07.2016 under Section 24 of the Act by the Family Court, the order passed by the Family Court, Samastipur under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. stands superseded and now no longer holds the field. SUPREME COURT […]

  • A judge is the pillar of entire justice system and public has a right to demand virtually irreproachable conduct from a judge (SC-10/12/2019) - A person discharging judicial duties acts on behalf of the State in discharge of its sovereign functions. Dispensation of justice is not only an onerous duty but has been considered as akin to discharge of a pious duty, and therefore, is a very serious matter. The standards of probity, conduct, integrity that may be relevant for discharge of duties by a careerist in another job cannot be the same for a judicial officer. A judge holds the office of a public trust. Impeccable integrity, unimpeachable independence with moral values embodied to the core are absolute imperatives which brooks no compromise. A judge is the pillar of the entire justice system and the public has a right to demand virtually irreproachable conduct from anyone performing a judicial function. Judges must strive for the highest standards of integrity in both their professional and personal lives.
  • A daughter has no right u/s 14 of Hindu Succession Act of her father’s property if it is occupied by her brother through adverse possession (SC-28/08/2023) - A Hindu daughter has no right u/s 14 of Hindu Succession Act on the property of her father if it is occupied by her brother through adverse possession (SC-28/08/2023)- [See Pritam Singh v. State, AIR (1950) SC 169: (1950) SCR 453, Hem Raj v. State of Ajmer AIR (1954) SC 462: (1954) SCR 1133, Bengal Chemical & Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Employees, AIR (1959) SC 633: 1959 Supp (2) SCR 136: (1959) 1 LLJ 413, Municipal Board, Pratabgarh and Anr. v. Mahendra Singh Chawla and Ors. (1982) 3 SCC 331: (1983) SCC (L&S) 19, Taherakhatoon (dead) by LRs v. Salambin Mohammad (1999) 2 SCC 635]

Jurisprudence

Recent Updates