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]

D. G. Gouse and Co. (Agents) Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Kerala and another [ ALL SC 1979 SEPTEMBER]

AIR 1980 SC 271 : (1980) 1 SCR 804 : (1980) 2 SCC 410 (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) D. G. Gouse and Co. (Agents) Pvt. Ltd. Appellant Versus State of Kerala and another Respondent AND S. K. Subramanian Appellant Versus State of Kerala and others Respondent AND The Customs Clearing Agents’ Association Appellant Versus State… Read More D. G. Gouse and Co. (Agents) Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Kerala and another [ ALL SC 1979 SEPTEMBER]

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]

The scope and ambit of Sec. 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

Power under Section 319 of the Code can be exercised by the Court suo motu or on an application by someone including accused already before it, if it is satisfied that any person other than accused has committed an offence and he is to be tried together with the accused. The power is discretionary and such discretion must be exercised judicially having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Undisputedly, it is an extraordinary power which is conferred on the Court and should be used very sparingly and only if compelling reasons exist for taking action against a person against whom action had not been taken earlier. The word “EVIDENCE” in Section 319 contemplates EVIDENCE of witnesses given in Court. Under sub-section (4)(1)(b) of the aforesaid provision, it is specifically made clear that it will be presumed that newly added person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced. That would show that by virtue of sub-section (4)(1)(b) a legal fiction is created that cognizance would be presumed to have been taken so far as newly added accused is concerned. (See Lok Ram v. Nihal Singh and Anr. (AIR 2006 SC 1892)).… Read More The scope and ambit of Sec. 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

Kuldip Nayar Versus Union of India and Ors [ALL SC 2006 AUGUST]

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]

Ameer Trading Corporation Ltd. Versus Shapoorji Data Processing Ltd [ALL SC 2003 SEPTEMBER]

KEYWORDS:-EVIDENCE BY AFFIDAVIT AIR 2004 SC 355 : (2003) 5 Suppl. SCR 634 : (2004) 1 SCC 702 : JT 2003 (9) SC 109 : (2003) 9 SCALE 713 (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Ameer Trading Corporation Ltd. Appellant Versus Shapoorji Data Processing Ltd. Respondent (Before : V. N. Khare, C.J.I., S. B. Sinha And Dr.… Read More Ameer Trading Corporation Ltd. Versus Shapoorji Data Processing Ltd [ALL SC 2003 SEPTEMBER]

A person practising law has to practise in the spirit of honesty and not in the spirit of mischief-making or money-getting.

The legal profession is a noble profession. It is not a business or a trade. A person practising law has to practise in the spirit of honesty and not in the spirit of mischief-making or money-getting. An advocate’s attitude towards and dealings with his client has to be scrupulously honest and fair.  In V.C. Rangadurai… Read More A person practising law has to practise in the spirit of honesty and not in the spirit of mischief-making or money-getting.