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.
When right of private defence is not available ?
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.
In case of the partition suit, all the parties are to be treated as plaintiffs. Even if any preliminary decree would have been passed by this court in this suit based on the said affidavit dated 15th October, 1985 under Order 20 Rule 18 read with sections 151 to 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, court has ample power to pass more than one preliminary decree or to modify the preliminary decree prior to passing of the final decree having regard to change of supervening circumstances.
M.V. ELISABETH AND OTHERS Vs. HARWAN INVESTMENT AND TRADING PVT. LTD., HANOEKAR HOUSE, SWATONTAPETH, VASCO-DE-GAMA, GOA
(1993) AIR(SCW) 177 : (1993) AIR(SC) 1014 : (1992) 2 JT 65 : (1992) 1 SCALE 490 : (1993) Sup2 SCC 433 : (1992) 1 SCR 1003 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION […]
West Bengal Act 9 of 1972 [4th May, 1972.] Assent of the President was first published in the Calcutta Gazette, Extraordinary, of the 4th May, 1972. An Act to provide for special […]
Death of plaintiff shall not abate suit if decreed in a defamation suit, legal heirs shall be substituted- SC
MELEPURATH SANKUNNI EZHUTHASSAN Vs. THEKITTIL GEOPALANKUTTY NAIR – The position, however, is different where a suit for defamation has resulted in a decree in favour of the plaintiff because in such a case the cause of action has merged in the decree and the decretal debt forms part of his estate and the appeal from the decree by the defendant becomes a question of benefit or detriment to the estate of the plaintiff-respondent which his legal representatives is entitled to uphold and defend and is, therefore, entitled to be substituted in place of the deceased respondent-plaintiff. [ Supreme Court- 29-11-1985]
NINTH SCHEDULE (Article 31B) 1. The Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (Bihar Act XXX of 1950). 2. The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (Bombay Act LXVII of 1948). 3. The […]
NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF PAKISTAN Islamabad, the 12th September, 1972 ACT NO IX OF 1972 An Act to give effect in Pakistan to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961, and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963. WHEREAS Pakistan has acceded to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961, and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963; AND WHEREAS it […]
(Act No. 19 of 1972) An Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to the Civil Courts, Subordinate to the High Court in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Received the assent […]
(U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) An Act to provide, in the interest of the general public, for the regulation of letting, and rent of, and the eviction of tenants from, certain […]
Vehicle cannot be confiscated merely on accusation of commission of offence, by invoking Section 451 of Cr.P.C. said vehicle can be released
The vehicles seized under Section 50 from alleged offender cannot become property of State unless there is trial and finding reached by competent court that property seized was used for committing the […]
A retrospective operation is, therefore, not to be given to a statute so as to impair existing right or obligation, otherwise than as regards matter of procedure .unless that effect cannot be avoided without doing violence to the language of the enactment. Before applying a statute retrospectively the Court has to be satisfied that the statute is in fact retrospective. The presumption against retrospective operation is strong in .cases in which the statute, if operated retrospectively, would prejudicially affect vested rights or the illegality of the past transactions, or impair contracts, or impose new duty or attach new disability in respect of past transactions or consideration already passed.
26. There is no power of review with the Criminal Court after judgment has been rendered. The High Court can alter or review its judgment before it is signed. When an order […]
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 […]
It is settled legal position that court is to respond only to issue agitated before it and in case at the time of hearing issue was not taken the court cannot deal with it-SC
(2010) 96 AIC 241 : (2011) AIR(SC)Civil 53 : (2010) 6 ALLMR(SC) 949 : (2011) 2 AllWC 1592 : (2010) 83 ALR 709 : (2010) 3 ARC 632 : (2011) 2 ICC […]
1. Short title and commencement. 2. Definitions. 3. Constitution of the Board. 4. Application of West Bengal Act 12 of 1956. 5. Members of the Board and their resignation or removal. 6. […]
The apex court’s five-judge Constitution bench was unanimous in striking down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code dealing with the offence of adultery, holding it as manifestly arbitrary, archaic and violative of the rights to equality and equal opportunity to women
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.