Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1953 on quantum of costs.
“If we were to issue interim mandatory injunction in such like cases, it might set a bad precedent in law that would enable the States to flout fiscal policies and still successfully claim additional borrowings.”
The directions were issued by the High Court in pursuance to the directive issued by the Supreme Court in Shama Sharma v. Kishan Kumar.
To interpret ‘proceeding decided’ as entire proceedings and not a part of a proceeding would amount to restricting the exercise of revisional jurisdiction which is not as contemplated under Section 210 of UP Revenue Code.
“The Court cannot create a deeming fiction on its own, where the statute does not do so. In the absence of any provision which deems a revocation petition under Section 64 of the Patents Act to be a suit, a Court cannot, even in the interests of expediency, so hold.”
The Supreme Court called the matter at hand a classic case in which a litigant had been able to mislead the Courts and authorities at different levels to put life into his stale claim.
As there is no provision in the RERA Act giving authority to the RERA Tribunal to deal with the subject matter of the suit, the jurisdiction of this Court cannot be said to be barred in the situation where the plaintiff requested for canceling the allotment.
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of Dinesh Maheshwari* and Aniruddha Bose, JJ., held that in cases disclosing deliberate defiance and elective non-performance
Delhi High Court: In a case relating to two marks being ‘Theobroma’ (‘defendant’) and Theos (‘plaintiff’), based out of Bombay and Delhi
Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court: While deciding the instant appeal wherein substantial questions of law were raised vis-a-vis SectionS 80,
Bombay High Court: Mangesh S. Patil, J., decided on the following questions for consideration: Whether in a suit for partition and possession
Orissa High Court: The Division Bench of Dr S. Muralidhar, CJ and A.K. Mohapatra, J., partly allowed an appeal filed in a
Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad: Vibha Kankanwadi, J., while addressing a matter revolving around the property, observed that, Article 254 of
Delhi High Court: Asha Menon, J., emphasized the law on territorial jurisdiction while addressing the present matter. Present petition was filed impugning
Delhi High Court: Asha Menon, J., addressed a suit for trade mark infringement, wherein the Court additionally addressed the scope of Section
Bombay HC’s Justice Dama Seshadri Naidu while discussing, quotes EBC’s C.K. Thakker’ s Code of Civil Procedure
by Karl K. Shroff*
Bombay High Court: Milind N. Jadhav, J., addressed a matter with regard to the amendment of pleadings. Petitioners have submitted that they
Karnataka High Court: Krishna S. Dixit J. set aside the impugned order and allowed the petition. The facts of the case are