Ambika Savaria and Ors. v. Sanjay Sharma and Ors.(2016)

Case NameAmbika Savaria and Ors. v. Sanjay Sharma and Ors.,
CourtBefore Supreme Court of India
BenchJ. Uday Umesh Lalit
Counsel for PetitionerMr. Kamal Mohan Gupta
Counsel for respondentMr. Ujjal Banerjee
Decided OnAugust 09, 2016
AbstractIn the present case, the matter was concerned with regards to eviction of a person from a premises on grounds of invalid ownership. The Supreme Court in the present case held that the question of ownership of the landlord is not open to tenant.
Author of briefAbhay Tyagi, Student at Gujarat National Law University.
KeywordsTenancy, Ownership, Madhya Pradesh Accomodation Control Act.

(more…)

Continue Reading

Kedarnath Bhattacharji v. Gorie Mahomed (1887): When at the desire of the promisor, promisee does something then it is valid consideration.

Case NameKedarnath Bhattacharji v. Gorie Mahomed, (1887) ILR 14 Cal 64
CourtBefore the High Court of Calcutta
Decided onNovember 26, 1886
BenchWC Pethekam, Beverley
Author of the JudgementWC Pethekam
Relevant lawsSection 2(D), 25 of the Indian contracts act
AbstractWhen at the desire of the promisor, promisee does something; it is valid consideration under section 2(d) of the ICA. In the following case, on the desire of the defendant promising to pay money, the plaintiff entered into another contract. Hence, this forms valid consideration under the act and defendants were held liable to pay the amount promised.
Author of the BriefAarsh Chokshi, Student at Gujarat National Law University.
KeywordsPromise, Consideration, Gratuity, Funds.

(more…)

Continue Reading

Smt. Triveniben v The State of Gujarat AIR 1989 SC 142

CaseSmt. Triveniben v State of Gujarat, AIR 1989 SC 142
CourtBefore Supreme Court of India
BenchG.L. Oza (J), Jagannatha Shetty (J), K.N. Singh (J), L.M. Sharma (J), M.M. Dutt (J).
Author of the judgementG.L. Oza (J) and K. Jagannatha Shetty (J).
Counsel for PetitionersR. K. Jain, Senior Advocate (With Ms Urmila Sirur, Mohd. Naseem, Rakesh K. Khanna, P. K. Jain, Mukul Mudgal, Sanjay Parikh, B.P. Singh, P. Krishna Rao, B. K. Prasad, Ms Malini Podwal and Lalit Kumar Gupta)
Counsel for RespondentsB. Datta, Additional Solicitor General, V. C. Mahajan and T. U. Gupta, Senior Advocates. (With Ms A Subhashini, A. K. Srivastava, M. N. Shroff and Mahabir Singh)
Decided on February 7, 1989.
AbstractIn the present case there was an delay in the execution of death sentence awarded against the appellant. It was the appellant's contention that owing to this delay, the death sentence should be commuted to life imprisonment. The Honourable Supreme Court of India dealt with some important issues concerned and finally reduced the sentence from death penalty to life imprisonment. The explanation given to the term 'delay' and the aspects relating to it are noteworthy.
Author of the BriefVishesh Sharma, Student at Gujarat National Law University.
KeywordsDeath Penalty, Constitution of India, Double Jeopardy, Fundamental Rights.

(more…)

Continue Reading

Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) v. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors (2011): Student can access answer scripts under RTI Act.

CaseCentral Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) v. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors, (2011) 8 SCC 497
CourtBefore the Supreme Court of India
BenchR.V. Raveendran, A.K. Patnaik
Author of the JudgementR.V. Raveendran
Date of Judgement9th August 2011
AbstractIn the present case, the main issue was whether a party is eligible to access his answer book for the purpose of revaluation and inspection under the Right To Information Act. The Honourable Supreme Court has held that the examinee has right to access those scripts provided that the request is made during a reasonable time in which the authorities are expected to retain the answer scripts.
Author of BriefBrijesh K. Patel, Student at Gujarat National Law University.
KeywordsRight To Information Act, Revaluation, Inspection, Fiduciary Relationship.

(more…)

Continue Reading

PREM CHAND V. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS, 1981 SCR (1) 1262

Case Prem Chand v. Union of India & Others, 1981 SCR (1) 1262
CourtBefore the Supreme Court of India
BenchKRISHNAIYER, V.R. PATHAK, R.S. REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)
Author of the judgementJustice V.R. Krishna Iyer
Petitioner’s CounselA.S. Sohal, M.C. Dhingra
Respondent’s Counsel: M.M. Abdul Khader, N, Nettar, M.N. Shroff
Date of Judgement11 November 1980
AbstractIn the present case, an externment order was passed by the commissioner of police against a person who refused to continue as a stock witness of police. The important acts concerning the present judgement is Delhi Police Act. The provisions relevant are Section 47 and 50 of the said act. The court also took into consideration Fundamental Rights as envisaged in the Constitution of India.
Author of the briefAbhay Tyagi, Student at Gujarat National Law University.
KeywordsExternment Order, Delhi Police Act, Fundamental Rights, Constitution of India.

(more…)

Continue Reading

Mahendra Singh Dhoni v. Yerraguntla Shyamsundar and Anr.(2017)

 

CaseMahendra Singh Dhoni v. Yerraguntla Shyamsundar and Another, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 450
CourtBefore the Supreme Court of India
BenchDipak Misra, A.M. Khanwilkar, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, JJ.
Author of the JudgementDipak Misra, J.
Counsel for the petitionerMs Liz Mathew
Counsel for the Co-accussedMr Sanchit Guru
Counsel for the respondentMr Jaideep Singh
Date of Judgement20 April 2017
AbstractThe present case deals with a transfer petition seeking transfer of case from Additional JMFC, Anantpur, Andhra Pradesh to CMM, Bangalore. The important legal provisions which are taken into consideration in the present case are section 295A of Indian Penal Code and Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code. The Supreme Court had relied upon various precedents like Ramji Lal Modi v State of UP and subsequently the complaint was quashed. The cautionary note provided by the Supreme Court in the present case is also noteworthy.
Author of the briefAbhishek Vyas, Student at Gujarat National Law University.
KeywordsSection 295A, Section 482, Indian Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code, Offence.

(more…)

Continue Reading

[Case Brief] DK Basu v State of West Bengal, 1996

Case NameDK Basu v. State of West Bengal along with Ashok K. Johri v. State of UP.
CourtBefore the Supreme Court of India
Decided on18.12.1996
BenchKuldip Singh, A.S.Anand, JJ.
Author of the judgementJustice A. S. Anand
AbstractIn the present case, guidelines with regards to all types of arrest and detention were made by the Supreme Court of India. The need for these guidelines arose due to writ petition filed seeking preventive measures against custodial death.
Author of the briefDarshan Patankar, Student at Gujarat National Law University.
KeywordsArrest, Custodial Death, Detention.

(more…)

Continue Reading

Raj Talreja v. Kavita Talreja(2017): Supreme Court on Mental Cruelty.

Case NameRaj Talreja v. Kavita Talreja
CourtBefore the Supreme Court of India
BenchA.K.Goel, Deepak Gupta, JJ.
Author of the judgementDeepak Gupta, J.
Counsel for AppellantMr. Gaurav Agrawal
Counsel for RespondentMs. Vibha Datta Makhija
Date of Judgement24.04.2017
AbstractIn the present case, there were false allegations made by the wife against the husband. Placing reliance on precedents, the court held that this amounts to mental cruelty for the spouse and can be a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act. The court has in detail discussed about the concept of mental cruelty in the instant case. The Honourable Supreme Court has also set aside the decisions of both trial court and the supreme court.
Author of the briefDarshan Patankar, Student at Gujarat National Law University.
KeywordsHindu Marriage Act, Divorce, Mental Cruelty.

(more…)

Continue Reading

Nur Ali Dubash v Abdul Ali (1892): Calcutta High Court on difference between partial and total restrain of trade.

CASE NAME Nur Ali Dubash v Abdul Ali, (1892) ILR 19 Cal 765
COURT Before the High Court of Calcutta
DECIDED ON March 4, 1892
BENCH Justice Pigot  and Justice Macpherson
AUTHOR OF THE JUDGEMENT Justice PA Macpherson
ABSTRACT

In the present case, there was an agreement between parties with regards to restraint of trade. Restraint of trade is dealt under section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Restraint of any lawful profession or business or trade of any kind is considered as void under law. However, with changing times, the courts have considered partial restraint of trade to be valid under the law if found to be reasonable.

According to the facts of the present case, the court found that the partial restraint observed in the agreement was not unreasonable and thus void.

AUTHOR OF THE BRIEF Aarsh Chokshi, Student at Gujarat National Law University.
KEYWORDS Section 27-Indian Contract Act, Partial Restraint of trade, Total Restraint of trade.

(more…)

Continue Reading
Close Menu