Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The remand in the present case could only be correlated with Rule 23-A of Order XLI CPC and for its applicability, the necessary requirements were that “the decree is reversed in appeal and a re-trial is considered necessary”, thus, the Supreme Court held that the remand in the present case was not justified.
While dealing with an appeal in a Title suit for partition, Jharkhand High Court considered the admissibility of disputed relationship of a mother and son through witnesses lacking ‘special means of knowledge’ as required under Section 50 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
The Supreme Court observed that the defendants, being in possession, would be entitled to protect and save their possession, unless the person who seeks to dispossess them has a better legal right in the form of ownership or entitlement to possession.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — S. 33 — Power of modification of award under — Scope of: Award can be modified
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 14(1)(a) and 2(1)(e) r/w Ss. 11(5) and 11(6) — Application seeking termination of
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Or. 7 R. 11(d) and Or. 14 R. 2: Limitation as a ground for rejecting
Constitution of India — Arts. 300-A and 31 — Expropriation of private property by State — Compensation — Entitlement: State
Madhya Pradesh High Court: G.S. Ahluwalia, J. dismissed a petition which was filed against the order passed by Twelfth Civil
Gujarat High Court: B.N. Karia, J. rejected an application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
Dwarka Courts, Delhi: Rahul Jain, Metropolitan Magistrate, while addressing a matter regarding dishonour of cheque, held that mere assertion of non-receipt of
Delhi High Court: Asha Menon, J., while setting aside the conclusion of the Metropolitan Magistrate and upholding the intervention by Sessions Court
Supreme Court: The Division Bench comprising of Hemant Gupta* and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ., reversed concurrent findings of Trial Court and Punjab and
Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, Srinagar: Sanjay Dhar, J., addressed a matter with regard to providing maintenance to a minor
Punjab and Haryana High Court: Avneesh Jhingan, J., entertained a petition under Section 482 CrPC where the petitioner was aggrieved by the
Bombay High Court: Anuja Prabhudessai, J., opined that where the witness is of tender age (as in the instant case before the
Sikkim High Court: Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J., dismissed the second appeal explaining that the second appeal is maintainable before the High Court
Himachal Pradesh High Court: Tarlok Singh Chauhan J. directed all the Panchayat Secretaries in the State of Himachal Pradesh to provide death
South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi: Naresh Kumar Laka, Additional District Judge, decided a suit with respect to partition and permanent injunction.
Bombay High Court: Pained to note the permitting of questions by the Lower Court which crossed all lines of dignity of a