Succession Act, 1925 – Section 63 – The first defendant denied selling the property to the plaintiff and asserted that her father had executed a will dated 23.03.1977 in favour of her son ‘M’ (the second defendant), who was the rightful owner of the property -Court held that the Will was duly proved by the evidence of the scribe and the attestors and that the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff was invalid as the legatee under the will, ‘M’ was not a party to it.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SAVITRI BAI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SAVITRI BAI — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Sanjay Kumar, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…
“Court Rules in Favor of Mobile Providers: Prepaid Sales Not Subject to TDS”
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHARTI CELLULAR LIMITED (NOW BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED) — Appellant Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 57, KOLKATA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before…
Rupa Ashok Hurra vs. Ashok Hurra & Anr (2002) 4 SCC 388 – This landmark case established the concept of curative petitions and the requirements for filing them – We do not think any case has been made out by the appellant for invoking the curative jurisdiction to take relook into the appellants case. Hence, we refrain from entertaining the curative petitions. We do not think any purpose would be served in sending the matter back to the Chamber Judge for instructions in the given circumstances.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S BRAHMAPUTRA CONCRETE PIPE INDUSTRIES ETC. ETC. — Appellant Vs. THE ASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose…
“Court-Approved Agreement Reached in Eviction Case Involving Religious Endowment Property” Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 – Section 78 – Order of Ejectment – The tenants were declared as encroachers under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, and the High Court ordered them to vacate the premises – The tenants challenged the order in the before this Court – Amicable Resolution
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH K. BALASUBRAMANI ETC. — Appellant Vs. THE TAMIL NADU GOVERNMENT REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT AND OTHERS ETC. — Respondent (…
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1995 – Ejectment – Landlords and the tenant of a bungalow in Delhi – Dispute is about the ejectment of the tenant from the demised premises – The High Court of Delhi remanded the matter to the Rent Controller for adjudication under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1995 – The tenant is occupying the demised premises at a monthly rental of Rs.3,328/- since 1972 – Settlement Terms
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SWAMI GOVERDHAN RANGACHARIJI AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M/S. A.J. PRINTERS — Respondent ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol, JJ. ) Petition…
Court allowed the appeal and quashed the complaint against the appellants, holding that the summoning order was passed without waiting for the police report under Section 202 of the Cr.PC, and that the complaint did not disclose any offence against the appellants.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHIV JATIA — Appellant Vs. GIAN CHAND MALICK AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. ) Criminal…
Supreme Court held that the respondent-company had breached the agreement by not offering possession of the apartment for fit outs by the stipulated date and the appellants had the right to terminate the agreement and claim unconditional refund with interest at 12% p.a. as per the agreement – The Supreme Court also held that the NCDRC had overstepped its jurisdiction by rewriting the terms and conditions of the contract and applying its own subjective criteria.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VENKATARAMAN KRISHNAMURTHY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. LODHA CROWN BUILDMART PVT. LTD. — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar, JJ. )…
Refund of excess price paid over the notified price in e-auction – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the appellant and directed the respondent to pay the refund amount with interest @ 12% per annum for the relevant periods, within two months, failing which the officers concerned would be personally liable.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. DOMCO SMOKELESS FUELS PVT. LTD — Appellant Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta,…
“No Tax Exemption for Enemy Property: Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of Enemy Property Act”
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LUCKNOW NAGAR NIGAM AND OTHERS — AppellantS Vs. KOHLI BROTHERS COLOUR LAB PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS — RespondentS ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and…
“Non-Disclosure of Past Case Not Fatal: Constable Wins Appeal Against Selection Cancellation”- The court also observed that each case of suppression or false information has to be decided on its own facts and circumstances, and that the employer has to act reasonably and objectively.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAVINDRA KUMAR — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…








