Tag: supreme court
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e4fec/e4fec70521f7abfc399c3b1bdfea2ddb9b86018d" alt="Limitations Of Defences In Transactions Affected By Lis Pendens: Supreme Court"
Limitations Of Defences In Transactions Affected By Lis Pendens: Supreme Court
The Hon’ble Supreme Court (“SC”) in its latest judgement[i] reiterated that once the transaction is affected by the doctrine of Lis Penden, then the defence of being a bona fide purchaser and lack of notice
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/06f9e/06f9e421bbfe5770b98a541a0e7bc8a667d945c5" alt=""
Supreme Court holds that while interpreting contractual stipulations the rule of literal interpretation should be followed when stipulations are clear and specific
The Hon’ble Supreme Court (“SC”) recently held in a noteworthy judgement of Kamal Kishore Seghal v. Murti Dev[i] that where the language used in an instrument/document is clear and unambiguous, only the clear expression of
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/bd137/bd137fa52ed3cfef3a3cd535fd6a9a5d37f3c1a3" alt="Failure of the Defendant to file Written Submission Does Not Seize its Right to Cross-Examine Supreme Court"
Failure of the Defendant to file Written Statement Does Not Seize its Right to Cross-Examine: Supreme Court
The Hon’ble Supreme Court (“SC”) recently delivered a noteworthy judgment in the case of Ranjit Singh & Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors.[i], addressing significant concern over an ex parte proceeding and the striking
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/948b1/948b14ad6b7c46171cb9092aaa970cd8e1a08f70" alt="Third Parties Not Required to Seek Cancellation of Void Sale Deeds Under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act Supreme Court"
Third Parties Not Required to Seek Cancellation of Void Sale Deeds Under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act: Supreme Court
In a recent landmark decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court[1] (“SC”) held that third parties affected by invalid sale deeds are not obligated to formally seek their cancellation. [1] Sk. Golam Lalchand v. Nandu Lal Shaw
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/89ca5/89ca5192c595204167f1ce390c60da8d4692b545" alt="SUPREME COURT LAYS DOWN PRINCIPLES ON AMENDMENT OF PLAINT UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908"
Supreme Court Lays Down Principles On Amendment Of Plaint Under Order VI Rule 17 Of The Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908
In a recent judgment[i], the Hon’ble Supreme Court (“SC”) reiterated the principles on amendment of a plaint as prescribed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908[ii] (“CPC”). A division bench
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/080e0/080e06b41f5ab8e12581d88556243e20f84e8452" alt="Landowners And Builder Jointly Liable Despite Revocation Of Power Of Attorney Supreme Court"
Landowners And Builder Jointly Liable Despite Revocation Of Power Of Attorney: Supreme Court
The Hon’ble Supreme Court (“SC”) in the case of Akshay and Anr. v. Aditya and Ors.[i] dismissed the Civil Appeals filed in a real estate dispute. The bench comprising of Bela M. Trivedi and Satish
- Arbitration and Conciliation
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy Code – Public Announcements
- Civil
- Commercial litigation
- Commercial/Corporate
- Competition act
- Criminal
- Cyber Law
- Debt Recovery
- Environment
- Family Law
- Food
- IL News
- Infrastructure
- Insolvency & Bankruptcy
- Insurance
- Intellectual Property Rights
- International
- Labour
- Law
- Medico-Legal
- Negotiable Instrument
- NRI Laws
- Policy
- Power
- Real Estate
- Tax