Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“The reasoning in the High Court’s judgment quite insensitively trivializes – indeed legitimizes – an entire range of unacceptable behaviour which undermines a child’s dignity and autonomy, through unwanted intrusions.”
Supreme Court: On the question as to ‘whether time is of the essence in a contract’, the bench of NV Ramana, CJ*
Supreme Court: The 3-Judges Bench comprising of L. Nageswara Rao, Sanjiv Khanna, B.R. Gavai*, JJ., held that when parties deliberately put their
Supreme Court: In an important ruling on Land Acquisition and Requisition law, the bench of AM Khanwilkar and Sanjiv Khanna*, JJ has
“To say that the Tribunal will have jurisdiction only if the subject property is disputed to be a waqf property and not if it is admitted to be a waqf property, is indigestible in the teeth of Section 83(1) of the Waqf Act.”
In Vikram Greentech (I) Ltd. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 5 SCC 599, the bench of DK Jain and RM
Supreme Court: Interpreting Section 263(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the bench of MR Shah* and AS Bopanna, JJ has held that receipt
Supreme Court: The 3-judg bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud*, Vikram Nath and BV Nagarathna, JJ has upheld the validity of Sections 52
“The IBC, as a prescriptive mechanism, affecting rights of stakeholders who are not necessarily parties to the proceedings, mandates diligence on the part of applicants who are aggrieved by the outcome of their litigation.”
Supreme Court: The bench of Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ has explained the scope of a “very strange provision” under Section
“Overall activities and functions of the Irrigation Department would have to be considered while deciding the question whether it is carrying on manufacturing activities.”
Supreme Court: The division bench of RF Nariman* and BR Gavai, JJ has explained the object and scope of Explanation 3C of
Supreme Court: Explaining the scope of Section 92 Proviso (6) of the Evidence Act, 1872, the 3-judge bench of NV Ramana, CJ* and
Supreme Court: In a case relating to dowry death, the bench of NV Ramana*, CJ and Aniruddha Bose, J has said that
“When the legislature used the words, “soon before” they did not mean “immediately before”. Rather, they left its determination in the hands of the courts.”
Supreme Court: The bench of L. Nageswara Rao* and Vineet Saran, JJ has shed light on how Courts should proceed while interpreting
Uttaranchal High Court: Ravindra Maithani, J., allowed a writ petition which was filed by the petitioner who was aggrieved by the advertisement
Supreme Court: The Division Bench comprising of R. F. Nariman* and B.R. Gavai, JJ., addressed the instant case regarding statutory interpretation. The
“One can imagine the serious hardship that would be caused to the consumers, if cases which have been already instituted before the NCDRC were required to be transferred to the SCDRCs as a result of the alteration of pecuniary limits by the Act of 2019.”
“Words are after all, a vehicle for communicating ideas, thoughts and concepts. A one-size-fits-all analogy may not always hold good when we construe similar words in entirely distinct settings.”