View Full Profile
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the right of the board to appeal in High Court as the right to appeal was available to the respondent at the time of initiation of the dispute before the amendment which wasn’t preserved thereof. ..
In SC's opinion the plaintiff was entitled to file an application/appeal under Order 44 Rule 1 of the Code and seek permission from the Appellate Court to allow him to file an appeal as an indigent person. The dismissal of the application made under ..
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the appellants are neither the aggrieved party nor bound by the judgement of Trial court or HC ..
The Supreme Court decreed the appeal filed by the Appellant and condoned his delay of 546 days in filing the First appeal. ..
The Honorable Supreme Court pointed out the mistake made by the Trial Court and the High Court and gave a judgment setting aside the decree passed by the High Court...
After referring to all the evidences of adultery and cruelty, the husband was declared guilty of adultery and cruelty. The cruelty which entitles her to a judicial separation, even if he was not guilty of adultery. The manner in which the husband had..
The appeal was allowed and the judgment was set aside as the High Court was wrong in it's decision. ..
It was held that the court below has not rightly interpreted the Order prescribed in CPC related to the Interrogatories, the application rejected was one and only a single ground of interrogatories. The Court below has not even checked the relevance..
MGG said that BOCL wanted to borrow money from a bank &MGG wanted to be a guarantor on those shares. ..
The respondent is guilty of the alleged corrupt practices under RPA Act...
The Court stated that the Defendant-Petitioner has acted in a manner to cause colossal insult to justice and to the concept of speedy disposal of civil litigation. ..
The penalty imposed under Order 11, Rule 21 is of high penal nature and should be used only in extreme cases and should no way be imposed unless there is a clear failure to comply with the obligations. It should be applied only in extreme contumacy o..
Before declaring the judgment the court very well explained the provisions under Order 33 before and after the amendment. It referred several cases as well. It finally held that, person refers to one who is capable of filing a suit and Order 33 being..
Before declaring the Judgment the Court very carefully explained the provisions of Section 13B and Section 23(1)(bb) of HMA and the sub-sections under it. The Court also explained the Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act as Section 13B is in pari m..
Before declaring the Judgment the Court carefully explained the term indigent as mentioned under Rule 1 Order 33 of CPC. Apart from the said immovable properties, the petitioners owned 450 grams of gold jewels and properties valued more than Rs.1000/..
The petition was dismissed as there was no merits in the review petition...
The Supreme Court of India rejected the order of High Court and gave sanction to the claim of appellant...
The High Court ultimately held that such an application for eviction was maintainable. Hence the appeal to this Court Allowing the appeal and remitting the case back to the Rent Controller. ..
High Court gave a new judgment setting aside the order passed by the Trial Court considering the claims of the appellant. ..
No particular amount for maintenance can be fixed by the Act as the amount may differ from case to case. The Courts have to fix the amount of maintenance considering all the circumstances of both the parties...
© 2025 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
