Kanhaiyalal Versus Dr. D. R. Banaji and others [All SC 1958 MARCH]

Keywords:-Receiver- Sale of Property- One thing is absolutely clear, namely, that the Code does not lay down any specific rules in respect of property which has been placed in custodia legis. AIR 1958 SC 725 : (1959) SCR 333 (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Kanhaiyalal Appellant Versus Dr. D. R. Banaji and others Respondent (Before :… Read More Kanhaiyalal Versus Dr. D. R. Banaji and others [All SC 1958 MARCH]

MANI SUBRAT JAIN Vs. RAJA RAM VOHRA [ALL SC 1979 NOVEMBER]

The expression ‘tenant’ includes ‘a tenant continuing in possession after the termination of the tenancy in his favour’. It thus includes, by express provision, a quondam tenant whose nexus with the property is continuance in possession. The fact that a decree or any other process extinguishes the tenancy under the general law of real property does not terminate the status of a tenant under the Act having regard to the carefully drawn inclusive clause. Even here, we may mention by way of contrast that Subudhi’s case (supra) related to a statute where the definition in Section 2(5) of that Act expressly included “any person against whom a suit for ejectment is pending in a court of competent jurisdiction” and more pertinent to the point specially excluded “a person against whom a decree or order for eviction has been made by such a court.… Read More MANI SUBRAT JAIN Vs. RAJA RAM VOHRA [ALL SC 1979 NOVEMBER]

Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. Vs. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice [ALL SC 2018 September]

September 6, 2018:-SECTION 377of IPC-Homosexuality-It is declared that insofar as Section 377 criminalises consensual sexual acts of adults (i.e. persons above the age of 18 years who are competent to consent) in private, is violative of Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. It is, however, clarified that such consent must be free consent,… Read More Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. Vs. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice [ALL SC 2018 September]

Suresh Kumar Koushal & Anr vs Naz Foundation & Ors [ALL SC 2013 DECEMBER]

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.10972 OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.15436 of 2009) Suresh Kumar Koushal & Anr vs Naz Foundation & Ors Decided on: 11 December 2013 Bench: G.S. Singhvi, Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya JUDGMENT G.S. SINGHVI, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. These appeals are directed against order… Read More Suresh Kumar Koushal & Anr vs Naz Foundation & Ors [ALL SC 2013 DECEMBER]

Scope of an irrevocable letter of credit explained by Supreme Court

An irrevocable letter of credit has a definite implication. It is a mechanism of great importance in international trade. Any interference with that mechanism is bound to have serious repercussions on the international trade of this country. Except under very exceptional circumstances, the Courts should not interfere with that mechanism. There is this to be… Read More Scope of an irrevocable letter of credit explained by Supreme Court

Dr. N. G. Dastane Versus Mrs. S. Dastane [ALL SC 1975 March]

The Mohomedan law, on a question of what is legal cruelty between Man and Wife, would probably not differ materially from our own of which one of the most recent exposition is the following:- There must be actual violence of such a character as to endanger personal health or safety; or there must be a reasonable apprehension of it’… Read More Dr. N. G. Dastane Versus Mrs. S. Dastane [ALL SC 1975 March]

Whether the award could be set aside, if the Arbitral Tribunal has not followed the mandatory procedure prescribed under S. 24, 28 or 31(3), which affects the rights of the parties?

Under sub-section (1)(a) of S. 28 there is a mandate to the Arbitral Tribunal to decide the dispute in accordance with the substantive law for the time being in force in India. Admittedly, substantive law would include the Indian Contract Act, the Transfer of Property Act and other such laws in force. Suppose, if the… Read More Whether the award could be set aside, if the Arbitral Tribunal has not followed the mandatory procedure prescribed under S. 24, 28 or 31(3), which affects the rights of the parties?

Most. Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan and others Vs Moran Mar marthoma and another [ALL SC 1995 JUNE]

AIR 1995 SC 2001 : (1995) 1 Suppl. SCR 542 : (1995) 4 Suppl. SCC 286 : JT 1995 (5) SC 1 : (1995) 4 SCALE 1 (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Most. Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan and others Appellant Versus Moran Mar marthoma and another Respondent (Before: R. M. Sahai, B. P. Jeevan Reddy And S.… Read More Most. Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan and others Vs Moran Mar marthoma and another [ALL SC 1995 JUNE]