There is a fundamental distinction between a proceeding which is collusive and one which is fraudulent.”Collusion in judicial proceedings is a secret arrangement between two persons that the one should institute a […]
A. In M.V. Bijlani Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, this Court held: “… Disciplinary proceedings, however, being quasi criminal in nature, there should be some evidences to prove the charge. […]
Law of Torts refers to negligence as breach of a duty caused by omission to do something which a reasonable man can not do.
Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Sushila Devi (Smt.) & Ors., reported in (1999) 4 SCC 317 and made observations referring to the accident caused due to […]
A shareholder who buys shares in a Company does not buy any interest in the Company which is an independent juristic person
It is settled law that shareholders have no right in the property of the Company. The corporate veil cannot be lifted unless a compelling case is made out by the Plaintiffs, since […]
It reads as under: 10 (2) Court may strike out or add parties -The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and […]
Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which decision was made.
Over a period of time grounds have been evolved on which judicial review of administrative action is permissible. The administrative decision can be interfered with if it lacks in fairness or is […]
In Dhanraj v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.[ the Supreme Court considered a policy which covered “own damage” and held that under the policy of insurance in that case under […]
“Possessed of sufficient means” which means that what was not possessed at the time of suit cannot be taken into account
The scope of enquiry by the court under Order 33, Rule 5(d) is very limited Merits of the claim made in the application, which has to be treated as the plaint in […]
Order 33 Rule 5 CPC is not exhaustive of cases in which an application for permission to sue as pauper can be rejected
DELHI HIGH COURT SINGLE BENCH ( Before : M.L. Jain, J ) NAZIR AHMED — Appellant Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — Respondent First Appeal No. 119 of 1982 Decided on : 07-02-1984
High Court had inherent power to set aside an order passed against a party who had no notice of proceeding in which order was passed
Article 226 of the Constitution : In Shivdeo Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others, , the question was whether in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, […]