
Merely writing “cancelled” on registered power of attorney wouldn’t make it null and void: Supreme Court
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of K.M. Joseph* and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ., held that mere writing the word “cancelled” or drawing
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of K.M. Joseph* and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ., held that mere writing the word “cancelled” or drawing
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (NCDRC): The Coram of R.K. Agrawal (President) and Dr S.M. Kantikar (Member) addressed a matter
Supreme Court: The Division Bench comprising of M. R. Shah* and A.S. Bopanna, JJ., held that a person belonging to Scheduled Caste
Karnataka High Court: S. R Krishna Kumar J. allowed the petition and quashed the sale deed dated 23-08-2006. The present petition was
Odisha Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Bhubaneswar: Siddhanta Das, Chairperson, Pradeep Kumar Biswal, Member – I and Ramanath Panda, Member – II held
Karnataka High Court: A Division Bench of Satish Chandra Sharma CJ and Sachin Shankar Magadum J allowed the petition, quashed the initial
Andhra Pradesh High Court: M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J., expressed that, “If a party to the document wants to annul the document, he
South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi: Naresh Kumar Laka, Additional District Judge, decided a suit with respect to partition and permanent injunction.
Punjab and Haryana High Court: Expressing that when the children, who the parents have reared with untold sorrows and miseries, throw them
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of R.F. Nariman and B.R. Gavai, JJ., while addressing a significant and interesting question of law expressed
Kerala High Court: T.V. Anilkumar, J., allowed the petition against the impugned order of Munsiff Court, thereby upholding the order of returning
Supreme Court: The bench of AM Khanwilkar* and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ has held that for invoking Section 17 of the Limitation Act,
Himachal Pradesh High Court: Sandeep Sharma J., upheld the impugned judgment on merits. The facts of the case are such that the
Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a revision petition challenging an order passed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC; Raj Mohan Singh,
A very efficacious, substantive and procedural mechanism to facilitate the realisation of deserving and intrinsic value of encumbered estates and other immovable
Supreme Court: The 2-judge bench of Indu Malhotra and L Nageswara Rao, JJ has held that even when the entire sale consideration
Madhya Pradesh High Court: A miscellaneous petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was allowed by Sanjay Dwivedi, J.,
Chhattisgarh High Court: Sanjay K. Agarwal, J. allowed a petition filed by a Sub-Registrar duly appointed under Section 6 of the Registration Act,
Madhya Pradesh High Court: This petition was filed before the Bench of Vivek Rusia, J. Facts of the case were such that
Orissa High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Dr A.K. Rath, J., dismissed the petition which challenged the order of the trial