Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
In S. Kaladevi v. V.R. Somasundaram, (2010) 5 SCC 401, the Supreme Court had held that an unregistered document may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit seeking specific performance.
The Court also affirmed interpretation of Rule 6 by Delhi High Court in ITDC Limited v. Chander Pal Sood, wherein the High Court had held that Rule 6 gives a wide discretion to the Court.
“No provision under the 1908 Act confers power on any authority to refuse registration of a transfer document on the ground that the documents regarding the title of the vendor are not produced, or if his title is not established”.
The Supreme Court’s 2024 decisions have marked a significant turning point in the country’s legal and constitutional framework. Key rulings delivered by Constitutional Benches on Electoral bonds, private property, royalty as tax, AMU’s minority status, sub-classification within reserved categories, etc. have left an impact on fundamental rights, political transparency and tax regime, shaping India’s socio-political landscape, influencing both public policy and the broader democratic process.
by Tamarra Sequeira*, Amruthavarshini**, Aditya Sethi*** and Nandita Mathihalli****
Order XXI Rule 99, CPC is lucid that where any person other than the judgment debtor is dispossessed of immovable property by the holder of a decree for the possession of such property, he may make an application to the Court complaining of such dispossession.
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1952 on use and enjoyment of property.
ABOUT “REMEMBERING S P SATHE” Professor Satyaranjan Purushottam Sathe was a distinguished legal luminary and a renowned academician in the judicial universe
In Ram Rattan v. State of U.P., (1977) 1 SCC 188, the 3-judges Bench comprising S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, P.N. Bhagwati, and V.R. Krishnaiyer, JJ., delved into the scope of a trespasser to exercise the right of private defence of property and person.
The observation came in a case where the Supreme Court had to deny, a woman belonging to Scheduled Tribe, the right of survivorship in her father’s property as Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act specifically excludes the female members of the Scheduled Tribe.
“The continued presence of an unconstitutional law on the statute book, or the claim that such law was not challenged before Constitutional
“The State being a welfare State governed by the rule of law, cannot arrogate to itself a status beyond what is provided by the statute”
Supreme Court | The Division Court of Vikram Nath* and Dinesh Masheswari, JJ. held that the State’s act of taking the appellants’
“No doubt, that a Judicial Officer while discharging his/her duties, is expected to be independent, fearless, impassionate and non-impulsive. But a Judicial
Supreme Court: The bench of L. Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai, JJ has, in two judgments, has held that where the plaintiff’s
Supreme Court: In the case where two petitioners had encroached upon the Panchayat land and had constructed houses on it, the bench
Supreme Court: In an interesting case regarding land acquisition by government of Assam for setting up a plastic park, the Division Bench
Supreme Court analyses whether the right of pre-emption can be enforced for an indefinite number of transactions or it is exercisable only the first time.
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Arun Mishra, SA Nazeer and MR Shah, JJ has held that daughters have right in coparcenary
Supreme Court: In a matter where the plaintiff had no document to prove his possession of a property, but claimed possessory