Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“Person who does not do equity with others and even to the life companion, cannot approach the Court to seek approval of his relation under the umbrella of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
“The prime concern and endeavour of law should be to secure justice on the basis of truth, which ought to be unearthed through a committed and competent investigating agency.” observes the Court.
The writ court should not exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution which will obstruct contractual rights between the parties.
Madhya Pradesh High Court held that no document needs to be provided for registering an application under S. 17 of the SARFAESI Act, when the same is not a condition precedent required under the said Section.
Madhya Pradesh High Court held that all authorities while discharging public duties or performing judicial/quasi-judicial functions must be think about Justice and that every “FILE” carries a “LIFE”.
The entire trajectory of this case must be deprecated. When a principle challenge against the termination fails and while an appeal is pending, one distress warrant is challenged in Delhi only to be allegedly later withdrawn and other distress warrants are now brought before this Court.
Kerala High Court dismissed a petition seeking setting aside of sale of property conducted in violation of SARFAESI Rules, and saidthat the relief sought is within the scope of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, and not Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The Delhi High Court held that a borrower cannot ask for alteration of contract by way of a writ petition and a contract can only be altered through mutual consent between the parties.
Manipur High Court: In a writ petition filed challenging the compensation awarded by the Lower Court, the division bench of
Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court: While deliberating over the instant writ petition concerning reservation provided to Pahari Speaking People, the
Supreme Court: While adjudicating an appeal relating to arbitration, the Division Bench of M. R. Shah* and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ., held that
“High Court has used the word writ petition is disposed of. Once the writ of mandamus was issued, instead of disposing of the writ petition, the High Court ought to have allowed the writ petition.”
Framing of any scheme is no function of the Court and is the sole prerogative of the Government.
Orissa High Court: A Division Bench of S. Muralidhar CJ. and B. P Routray J. dismissed the petition being devoid of merits.
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Ashok Bhushan, SA Nazeer and Hemant Gupta*, JJ has reiterated that the nomenclature under which the
“The State and its instrumentalities are not exempt from the duty to act fairly merely because in their business dealings they have entered into the realm of contract.”
Calcutta High Court: Shekhar B. Saraf, J., in the instant matter after a precedential examination with regard to judicial inquiry, laid down
Jammu and Kashmir High Court: Sanjay Dhar J., while dismissing the present petition, discussed the scope of interference under Article 226 in
Punjab and Haryana High Court: The Division Bench of Dr S. Muralidhar and Avneesh Jhingan, JJ., dismissed the instant petition upon discovery