Month: March 2018

Agreement to Sell–Mere fixation of time within which contract is to be performed does not make the stipulation as to the time as essence of contract. Agreement to Sell–Alternate plea of refund–In all suits for specific performance, plaintiff is entitled to seek alternative relief in the event the decree of specific performance cannot be granted for any reason.

2008(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 675 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam Civil Appeal No. 647 of 2008…

Jurisdiction of Tribunal-The main question involved in the suit was whether the suit land is a Wakf property or not- Plaintiff says that it is a Wakf property whereas the defendants say that it is not the Wakf property but it is their self- property–This question, can be decided only by the Tribunal and not by the Civil Court.

  (2017) 175 AIC 125 : (2017) AIR(SCW) 2155 : (2017) AIR(SC) 2155 : (2017) 123 ALR 784 : (2017) 4 AndhLD 106 : (2017) 2 ARC 226 : (2017)…

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439–Rape–Kidnapping–Bail–Charge sheet was filed against appellant and four other persons-Case against appellant is almost similar to that of o the r co-accused who have been enlarged on bail—Appellant has no other criminal antecedents-Bail granted-Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 & S.366.

(2017) 100 ACrC 979 : (2017) 177 AIC 68 : (2017) 2 AICLR 803 : (2017) AIR(SCW) 2474 : (2017) AIR(SC) 2474 : (2017) ALLMR(Cri) 2220 : (2017) CriLR 457…

You missed

Temple Bye Laws — Oachira Parabrahma Temple — Ancient structure without a building or deity, governed by Bye-laws with three-tier elected committees — Appellants, elected Secretary and President, challenged two High Court orders (2020 and 2023) that removed their committee and appointed an unelected one under an Administrative Head, citing violations of the temple’s Bye-laws and customs —Legality of appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one contrary to the temple’s Bye-laws — Petitioner argues that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction and violated the temple’s governance structure by appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one without proper legal basis — The High Court’s actions were necessary for the efficient administration of the temple until a scheme could be framed and new elections held — The Supreme Court modified the High Court orders, appointing a new retired Judge as Administrative Head to conduct fair elections within four months, while directing all parties to cooperate — The Court emphasized the need to preserve temple properties and governance as per established customs and laws — The Supreme Court struck down the High Court’s order appointing an unelected committee, appointed a new Administrative Head to conduct elections, and directed all parties to cooperate, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the temple’s established governance structure and Bye-laws.