KEYWORDS:- COPYRIGHT – COMMON LAW PRINCIPLES-Infringement of a copyright- DATE:-18-08-1978 AIR 1978 SC 1613 : (1979) 1 SCR 218 : (1978) 4 SCC 118 (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) R G. Anand Appellant […]
Keywords:- Industry meaning- DATE:-07-04-1978 AIR 1978 SC 548 : (1978) 3 SCR 207 : (1978) 2 SCC 213 (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Appellant Versus A. Rajappa […]
KEYWORDS:-PREVENTIVE DETENTION-Personal liberty- DATE:- 25-01-1978 Preventive Detention must be in the interest of the general public- It should Right , Fair and Just It has given a new interpretative dimension of the provisions […]
Whether a statute authorizing a blood draw from an unconscious motorist provides an exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement.
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 […]
T. ARIVANDANDAM Vs. T.V. SATYAPAL AND ANOTHER – Rejection of Plaint – Under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if clear drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it is the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order X, C.P.C. An activist Judge is an answer to irresponsible lawsuits. The trial Courts would insist imperatively on examining the party at the first hearing so that bogus litigation can be shot down at the earliest stage. The Penal Code is also resourceful enough to meet such men, (Ch. XI) and must be triggered against them – SC [14-10-1977]
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 […]
Orissa Act No. 6 of 1978 Published vide Orissa Gazette Extraordinary/27.3-1978. For Statement of Objects, and Reasons see Orissa Gazette Extraordinary No. 200/16.2.1976. An Act to provide for the abolition of payment […]
In State of U.P. and Another v. Kamla Palace, (2000) 1 SCC 557, this Court, while considering a fiscal statute in relation to Article 14 of the Constitution, has stated as under: […]
How can there be a rule of law society if members, bulk of whom are poor and unable to decode law to obey it? SC
The rule of law is the cornerstone of democracy and how can there be a rule of law society if the members, the bulk of whom are too poor to buy legal […]
If a party in Trial or appeal or revision dies and right to sue survives the L.Rs must be substituted otherwise suit shall be abated-SC
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ( Before : D. A. Desai, J; Baharul Islam, J ) BIBI RAHMANI KHATOON AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. HARKOO GOPE AND OTHERS — Respondent
If property belongs to Government for acquisition of easementary right by prescription user of “30 years” is required.
It is settled principle of law that what has not been conferred in the plaint cannot be proved. Only right of easement by way of prescription has been pleaded, alleging that Plaintiff was using the land of Plot No. 164 for 20 years. It is pertinent to mention here that at the end of Section 15 of Indian Easement Act, 1882, which pertains to acquisition by prescription, it is specifically mentioned that if the property, over which a right is claimed, belongs to the Government, the word ’20 years’ shall be read as ’30 years’. As such, in respect of a Government land mere user for 20 years does not confer any easementary right by way of prescription to the Plaintiff, as he has nowhere pleaded that he used the land for 30 years or more.
28. Section 13 of the Press Council Act, 1978 specifies the objects and functions of the council. Section 13(2)(c) states: to ensure on the part of newspapers, news agencies and journalists, the […]
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 […]
Whether refusal to have sexual intercourse for a long time without sufficient reason itself amounts to mental cruelty? SC Yes
Samar Ghosh vs Jaya Ghosh
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.
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”.
SCHEDULED BANKS UNDER RBI ACT Ajodhia Bank, Fyzabad, Allahabad Bank. American Express Banking Corp. American Express International Banking Corporation. Andhra Bank, Masulipatam. Bank of America, National Association. Bank of Baroda Bank of […]
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 […]
According to Section 433(A) that a prisoner who has been sentenced to death and whose death sentence has been commuted into one of imprisonment for life and persons who have been sentenced to imprisonment for life for an offence for which death is one of the punishments provided by law should undergo actual imprisonment of 14 years in Jail. We are referring to Section 433(A) in this judgment only for a limited purpose of showing that after the introduction of this section, the life convicts falling within the purview of Section 433(A) has to undergo the mandatory minimum 14 years of actual imprisonment. It may be mentioned at this juncture that no one has got a vested right to claim premature release on the ground that he has suffered the minimum actual imprisonment as prescribed under Section 433(A) because a sentence of ‘imprisonment for life’ is incarceration until death, that is, for the remaining period of convicted prison’s actual life