Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The view of the Full Bench in Kamla Yadav case, that a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal constituted under the Act is a Court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code, does not require reconsideration.
Section 9 of CPC is also symbolised as the gateway to the civil Courts as it envisages not only the inherent powers of the Civil Courts to entertain any suit of a civil nature, but also the inherent rights of the disgruntled yet hopeful litigants to approach the civil Courts with a huge expectation that they will get justice from this forum, which would adjudicate upon their infracted legal rights and will invoke the legal machinery to protect and vindicate such rights.
Calcutta High Court | Krishna Rao, J., held that under Companies Act, 2013, Civil Courts have jurisdiction to enquire into
Madras High Court: The full bench of P.N. Prakash, Teekaa Raman and A.D Jagadish Chandira, JJ. held that the jurisdiction
Bombay High Court: In a unique case where the officers exercising powers under the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul*, Abhay S. Oka and Vikram Nath, JJ, while dealing with the issue relating
Supreme Court: While deciding about a century-old land dispute, the Division Bench of Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian*, JJ., upheld the impugned
Supreme Court: The bench of Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian*, JJ has lucidly explained the law on the jurisdiction in case of
Telangana High Court: The Division Bench of P. Naveen Rao and Sambasivarao Naidu, JJ. allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned
Supreme Court: The bench of Ajay Rastogi* and Abhay S. Oka, JJ has held that jurisdiction of the Civil Court is impliedly
Supreme Court: Deciding the ambit of the bar of jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953
“To say that the Tribunal will have jurisdiction only if the subject property is disputed to be a waqf property and not if it is admitted to be a waqf property, is indigestible in the teeth of Section 83(1) of the Waqf Act.”
Supreme Court: The bench of Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ has explained the scope of a “very strange provision” under Section
Supreme Court of India: Observing the well-settled position of law that, Mutation Entry does not confer any right, title or interest in
Calcutta High Court: Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J., expressed that: Where a conflict arises between individual conscience of the concerned Judge and judicial conscience,
Punjab and Haryana High Court: Rajbir Sehrawat, J., allowed the instant second appeal challenging the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta* and Ajay Rastogi, JJ has held that the High Court is
The RERA Act does not bar the initiation of proceedings by allottees against the builders under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Supreme Court: The single judge bench of V. Ramasubramanian, J has held that the issue of jurisdiction of a court to try
Delhi High Court: Najmi Waziri, J., while addressing the present matter considered the following issues: Whether elections to the Board of Directors of