Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“Initially a writ petition was filed before the High Court in the year 2000 which was transferred to the Tribunal in 2017 and thereafter, it came to be dismissed in 2024, we request the Tribunal to grant priority to hearing of this petition, and expect that the Tribunal shall hear and decide the same within a period of five months”
Madras High Court was satisfied that the family is without any means and that unless the property is allowed to be dealt with, great hardship will be caused to them.
Calcutta High Court held that “in order to decide whether the suit is barred by any law, it is the statement in the plaint which will have to be construed.”
Madras High Court said that merely because Section 62 of the CCI Act, 2002 states that the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law, it cannot be interpreted that any individual can institute proceedings in a Commercial Court alleging abuse of dominance, while completely ignoring Section 61 of the Act of 2002.
Calcutta High Court referred the appeal to the bench with jurisdiction over first appeals from orders under Order 43(1)(a) passed by a regular court of civil jurisdiction, not by a special or commercial court.
“This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1952 on Sections 290 and 291 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939.”
“The Single judge directed IOCL to deliver peaceful vacant possession of the premises to the appellants upon removal of the structures therein. Further, directed it to pay arrears of market rent to the appellants in respect of the plot from 1-07-1995 till the date of delivery of possession in favour of the appellants”
“Proceedings under Section 24 of the UP Revenue Code, 2006, are summary in nature while an injunction suit filed by the respondent is a regular suit.”
“This is a case that clamours for the exercise of judicial conscience to address the conundrum of whether an individual’s right to recover arrears in maintenance subsists even after the expiry of the period stipulated in section 125(3) CrPC.”
At the time of mutation proceedings, the competent authority must examine the manner of acquisition of the title.
The view of the Full Bench in Kamla Yadav case, that a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal constituted under the Act is a Court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code, does not require reconsideration.
Section 9 of CPC is also symbolised as the gateway to the civil Courts as it envisages not only the inherent powers of the Civil Courts to entertain any suit of a civil nature, but also the inherent rights of the disgruntled yet hopeful litigants to approach the civil Courts with a huge expectation that they will get justice from this forum, which would adjudicate upon their infracted legal rights and will invoke the legal machinery to protect and vindicate such rights.
Calcutta High Court | Krishna Rao, J., held that under Companies Act, 2013, Civil Courts have jurisdiction to enquire into
Madras High Court: The full bench of P.N. Prakash, Teekaa Raman and A.D Jagadish Chandira, JJ. held that the jurisdiction
Bombay High Court: In a unique case where the officers exercising powers under the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul*, Abhay S. Oka and Vikram Nath, JJ, while dealing with the issue relating
Supreme Court: While deciding about a century-old land dispute, the Division Bench of Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian*, JJ., upheld the impugned
Supreme Court: The bench of Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian*, JJ has lucidly explained the law on the jurisdiction in case of
Telangana High Court: The Division Bench of P. Naveen Rao and Sambasivarao Naidu, JJ. allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned
Supreme Court: The bench of Ajay Rastogi* and Abhay S. Oka, JJ has held that jurisdiction of the Civil Court is impliedly