KALVAKUNTLA KAVITHA vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

by
KALVAKUNTLA KAVITHA vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

This court held that learned single judge wrongly applied Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024) 6 SCC 401 wherein court observed that category of persons added in section 45 (1) proviso should be dealt more sympathetically reason being such persons are likely to be more vulnerable and may sometimes be misused for committing such crimes.

Considering the finding of Saumya Chaurasia (supra) this court observed in present case in para 27 that finding of the said case does not mean that section 45(1) proviso only includes “vulnerable women”. Moreover only because women is highly educated that does not mean she is not entitled to the benefit under section 45(1) proviso.

Har Naraini Devi and Another vs. Union of India and Others

by
ANATHULA SUDHAKAR VS. P. BUCHI REDDY

In Har Naraini Devi and Another vs. Union of India and Others, an order of the division bench was assailed by filing an appeal before the apex court on the ground that section 50 of Delhi Land Reforms, 1954 (hereinafter referred as DLR Act) being ultra vires to Article 14, 15, 21 & 254 of the Constitution. The significant issue in the present case was controversy regarding the applicability of the Delhi Land Reform Act, 1954 and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 on any inheritance that accrued before the amendment of Hindu Succession in 2005.

NIRMALA AND OTHERS vs. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS

by
ANATHULA SUDHAKAR VS. P. BUCHI REDDY

“Whether Section 50 of the DLR Act has been repealed by the Amendment Act inasmuch as by omitting Section 4(2) of the HSA, 1956, it has removed the immunity that the DLR Act had with respect to the laws of succession in respect of agricultural land? Also, if that be the case, do the petitioners, being female, now have the right to succeed to the disputed agricultural land?”

COMPENSATION as remedy in WRIT

by
What is State? "ARTICLE 12 OF THE CONSTITUTION"

31…. The precious right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be denied to convicts, undertrials or other prisoners in custody, except according to procedure established by law. There is a great responsibility on the police or prison authorities to ensure that the citizen in its custody is not deprived of his right to life.

32. The citizen complaining of the infringement of the indefeasible right under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be told that for the established violation of the fundamental right to life, he cannot get any relief under the public law by the courts exercising writ jurisdiction. The primary source of the public law proceedings stems from the prerogative writs and the courts have, therefore, to evolve ‘new tools’ to give relief in public law by moulding it according to the situation with a view to preserve and protect the Rule of Law.

L. CHANDRA KUMAR vs. UNION OF INDIA

by
NILABATI BEHERA vs. STATE OF ORISSA

The present case concerns part XIV-A of the constitution the said part was appended with 42nd amendment of the Constitution in 1976. It includes two provisions 323A & 323B which confers power on the legislature to ordain any law concerning the establishment administrative tribunals and other tribunals, moreover to specify the power and procedure to be adopted by such tribunal for adjudication of any dispute referred to such tribunals.

VALIDITY OF UNSTAMPED ARBITRATION AGREEMENT

by
BHAVEN CONSTRUCTION vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEERING, SARDAR SAROVAR NARMADA NIGAM LTD. AND ANOTHER.

“Whether the statutory bar contained in Section 35 of the Stamp Act, 1899 applicable to instruments chargeable to stamp duty under Section 3 read with the Schedule to the Act, would also render the arbitration agreement contained in such an instrument, which is not chargeable to payment of stamp duty, as being non-existent, unenforceable, or invalid, pending payment of stamp duty on the substantive contract/instrument?”  

RES SUB JUDICE – SECTION 10 CPC

by
order 7 rule 11

The fundamental test to attract Section 10 is, whether on final decision being reached in the previous suit, such decision would operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit. Section 10 applies only in cases where the whole of the subject-matter in both the suits is identical. The key words in Section 10 are “the matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue” in the previous instituted suit. The words “directly and substantially in issue” are used in contradistinction to the words “incidentally or collaterally in issue”. Therefore, Section 10 would apply only if there is identity of the matter in issue in both the suits, meaning thereby, that the whole of the subject-matter in both the proceedings is identical.

RUDUL SAH v/s STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER

by
NILABATI BEHERA vs. STATE OF ORISSA

The question for our consideration is whether in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 32, this Court can pass an order for the payment of money if such an order is in the nature of compensation consequential upon the deprivation of a fundamental right?

APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11CPC – SHOULD BE DECIDED FIRST

by
order 7 rule 11

An application under order 7 rule 11 under CPC is filed by the defendant in a suit for the dismissal of the suit. Order 7 rule 11 also envisage the grounds for the dismissal of the suit. The one who is filing such application before court has burden of proof to establish and substantiate such ground for dismissal.

error: Content is protected !!