KEYWORDS:-PROBATE PROCEEDING-admission of addition of evidence under O. 41, R. 27 of the Civil Procedure Code – DATE:- 24-09-1957 AIR 1957 SC 875 : (1958) SCR 548 (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Surinder […]
In a suit for injunction based on prescriptive easement, the plaintiff should seek declaration that he has acquired the right
Easementary right of way — It has been statutorily declared that an easement which under no circumstances can be advantageous to the dominant heritage shall cease to exist. It has been Judicially […]
Published vide Notification No. S.R.O. 1154, dated 5.4.1957 Ministry of Home Affairs S.R.O. 1154. – In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 11 of the Salaries and Allowances […]
Supreme Court recommend the Union of India to seriously consider bringing an amendment in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to incorporate irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for the grant of […]
A joint Hindu family under Dayabhaga is, like a Mitakshara family, normally joint in food, worship and estate-SC
The differences between the Mitakshara and Dayabhaga schools on the birth-right of coparceners and the rules of inheritance have no bearing on the issues arising in this appeal, particularly on the question […]
What is a substantial question of law would certainly depend upon facts and circumstances of every case and if a question of law had been settled by the highest court of the country that question however important and difficult it may have been regarded in the past and however large may be its effect on any of the parties, would not be regarded as substantial question of law. In Raghunath Prasad v. Deputy Commissioner of Partabgarh  54 LA. 126 the Judicial Committee observed that a question of law to be considered a “substantial question of law” need not be one of general importance and it could be a substantial question “as between the parties”.
Conversion of land in Delhi (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Union of India and others Versus Dev Raj Gupta and others (Before: P. B. Sawant And K. Ramaswamy, JJ.) Civil Appeal No. 1996 […]
We are of the view that aforesaid directions are not consistent with the law laid down by the larger Bench in Mathew (supra). In Mathew (supra), the direction for consulting the opinion of another doctor before proceeding with criminal investigation was confined only in cases of criminal complaint and not in respect of cases before the Consumer Forum. The reason why the larger Bench in Mathew (supra) did not equate the two is obvious in view of the jurisprudential and conceptual difference between cases of negligence in civil and criminal matter. This has been elaborately discussed in Mathew (supra). This distinction has been accepted in the judgment of this Court in Malay Kumar Ganguly (supra) (See paras 133 and 180 at pages 274 and 284 of the report).
COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA Vs. CO-ORDINATION COMMITTEE OF ARTISTS AND TECHNICIANS OF W.B. FILM AND TELEVISION [ALL SC 2017 MARCH]
While identifying the relevant market in a given case, the CCI is required to look at evidence that is available and relevant to the case at hand. The CCI has to define […]
there is a custom of pre-emption co-extensive with Mahomedan Law