The partition of the immovable properties had been effected in about the middle of 1952 and the parties were since then in possession of the lands etc. which had been allotted to their share. The recital in the award is no more than a reference to an existing fact and does not purport to create or declare, by virtue of the award itself, right title or interest in immovable property.… Read More Mattapalli Chelamayya (dead) by his legal reps and anr Vs Mattapalli Venkataratnam (dead) by his legal reps and anr [SC 1972 JANUARY]
When right of private defence is not available ?
… Read More Lakshmi Tiwari and another Versus The State of Bihar [ALL SC 1972 JANUARY]
Hyderabad Jagirdars Debt Settlement Act, 1952—Sections 11 and 25—Mortgage executed in favour of bank. AIR 1972 SC 1053 : (1972) 3 SCR 157 : (1972) 1 SCC 530
whether the Industrial Tribunal, when it declined to grant the permission asked for by the appellant, has in any manner acted contrary to the principles referred to by Mr. Anand and set out above.… Read More Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Versus Ludh Budh Singh [ALL SC 1972 JANUARY]
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]
The main question which needs determination is whether part of the scheme mentioned before introduced by the Reserve Bank of India is violative of guarantee of equality before law and of equal opportunity in public employment as enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The High Court noted that the point arose at the instance of three petitioners who were Grade II working at Nagpur branch of Reserve Bank ever since their employment which commenced somewhere between 1960 to 1965.… Read More RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS Vs. C.N. SAHASRANAMAN AND ORS [ALL SC 1986 APRIL]
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]
In order to ensure smooth, consistent, uniform and unvarying functioning of the National Commission, the State Commissions and the District Forums, we deem it appropriate to direct the National Commission to frame comprehensive rules regarding appearances of the agents, representatives, registered organizations and/or non-advocates appearing before the National Commission, the State Commissions and the District Forums governing their qualifications, conduct and ethical behaviour of agents/non-advocates/representatives, registered organizations and/or agents appearing before the consumer forums.… Read More C. Venkatachalam Versus Ajitkumar C. Shah and Others [ALL SC 2011 AUGUST]
We conclude that the National Commission has jurisdiction to decide the dispute between the parties and it is a Court and that there was deficiency in service by the Appellant-carrier.
The question whether free and fair election is possible to be held or not has to be objectively assessed by the Election Commission by taking into consideration all relevant aspects. Efforts should be to hold the election and not to defer holding of election.… Read More Special Reference No. 1 of 2002. [ALL SC 2002 October ]
In the writ petition, there is a further challenge to the amendments in Sections 59, 94 and 128 of the RP Act, 1951 by which Open Ballot System is introduced which, according to the petitioner, violates the principle of ‘secrecy’ which, according to the petitioner, is the essence of free and fair elections as also the voter’s freedom of expression which is the basic feature of the Constitution and the subject matter of the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.… Read More Kuldip Nayar Versus Union of India and Ors [ALL SC 2006 AUGUST]
Desertion within the meaning of Section 10(1)(a) of the Act read with the Explanation does not imply only a separated residence and separate living. It is also necessary that there must be a determination to put an end to marital relation and cohabitation. … Read More Smt. Rohini Kumari Versus Narendra Singh [ALL SC 1971 December]
There is no dichotomy between the fitness of the father to be entrusted with the custody of his minor children and considerations of their welfare.… Read More Rosy Jacob Versus Jacob A. Chakramakkal [ALL SC 1973 APRIL]
KEYWORDS:-Ex parte eviction- sufficient cause- AIR 2000 SC 1221 : (2000) 2 SCR 97 : (2000) 3 SCC 54 : JT 2000 (2) SC 569 : (2000) 2 SCALE 198 (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) G.P. Srivastava Appellant Versus R.K. Raizada and others Respondent (Before: S. Saghir Ahmad And R. P. Sethi, JJ.) Civil Appeals Nos. 1934-35… Read More G.P. Srivastava Vs R.K. Raizada and others [ ALL SC 2000 MARCH]