Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“Impugned order passed on the application for temporary injunction is discretionary in nature and until and unless the same suffer from arbitrariness, perversity or grave illegality, which leads to miscarriage of justice, such order does not warrant interference by the Appellate Court.”
“Intentional exercise of a choice between the alternatives bars the persons making the choice from the benefit of the one not selected on the principle of ‘estoppel by election’.”
In the peculiar facts of the present case, taking recourse to law, cannot be, by any stretch of imagination, labeled as an instance of cruelty.
“The term ‘ZENITH’' even being a common English expression cannot be regarded as ‘publici juris’ in the context of services relating to education in dance.”
Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court stated that workmen can challenge their retrenchment order even after accepting retrenchment amount in case their employer has not followed the mandate of S. 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
In a suit property where father executed a release deed for relinquishment of rights for valuable consideration, Supreme Court held that the effect of principle of estoppel cannot be warded off by appellants claiming through their father whose conduct generated this estoppel.
Supreme Court upheld the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s order holding the respondent as the owner of the encroached land, as an encroacher cannot claim benefit of Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
Supreme Court: The bench of MR Shah* and BV Nagarathna, JJ has held that a consent decree cannot be modified/ altered unless
Supreme Court: Explaining the difference between acquiescence and delay and laches, the bench of L. Nageswara Rao and Sanjiv Khanna*, JJ has
“Waiver is an intentional relinquishment of a right. It involves conscious abandonment of an existing legal right, advantage, benefit, claim or privilege.”
by Dhruva Gandhi† & Vinodini Srinivasan‡
Himachal Pradesh High Court: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. contemplated a writ petition where the relief sought by the petitioner was ‘that the
Delhi High Court: Vibhu Bhakru, J. though conscious of the fact that the petitioners would face hardship, held that the petitioners who hold
Supreme Court: A bench of Dipak Misra and Shiva Kirti Singh, JJ, while relying upon Mathura Prasad Sarjoo Jaiswal v. Dossibai N.B.