payment of stamp duty
Op EdsOP. ED.

by Nirali Yash Desai†

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The Delhi High Court opined that that technicalities and procedural defects, which do not go to the root of the matter, should not be permitted to defeat a just cause, more so in cases where suits are initiated or defended on behalf of public corporations.

Case BriefsSupreme Court

While Justice Shah stated that the plaintiff had not produced the Power of Attorney, Justice Nagarathna opined that non-production of Power of Attorney was not fatal to the case of the original plaintiff.

Karnataka High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Karnataka High Court: Suraj Govindaraj, J., allowed the petition and quashed the compromise decree in the original suit filed before Principal Senior

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The Division Bench of K.M. Joseph* and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ., held that mere writing the word “cancelled” or drawing

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court:   The 3-judge bench of NV Ramana, CJ and AS Bopanna* and Hima Kohli, JJ has held that when the complainant/payee

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Prathiba M. Singh, J., observed that an advocate who is engaged by a client has to play only one role,

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay HC’s Justice Dama Seshadri Naidu while discussing, quotes EBC’s C.K. Thakker’ s Code of Civil Procedure

Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Himachal Pradesh High Court: Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J., laid down directions to avoid future abuse of judicial process like in the instant

Tripura High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Tripura High Court: Arindam Lodh, J. dismissed a writ petition by the petitioner challenging the show cause notice issued against him whereby

Case BriefsTribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

Securities Exchange Board of India (SEBI): Anant Barua, Whole Time Member, denied KSBL’s request to permit the continuation of Karvy Stock Broking Limited

Punjab and Haryana High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Punjab and Haryana High Court: Petitioner had prayed for anticipatory bail in FIR registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 471 and 120-B