Legal Snippets

Hon’ble Supreme Court on Judicial Review of Administrative Action. In recent times, judicial review of administrative action has become expansive and is becoming wider day by day. The traditional limitations have been vanishing and the sphere of judicial scrutiny is being expanded. State activity too is becoming fast pervasive. As the State has descended into […]

Hon’ble Supreme Court of United Kingdom on relationship between creditor, principal debtor, and surety. “The function of the rule is not to prevent a double proof of the same debt against two separate estates (that is what insolvency practitioners call “double dip”). The rule prevents a double proof of what is in substance the same

Hon’ble Supreme Court on Performance of Contract. It is a fundamental principle of general application that if a person of his own accord, accepts a contract on certain terms and works out the contract, he cannot be allowed to adhere to and abide by some of the terms of the contract which proved advantageous to

Hon’ble Supreme Court on damages in lieu of Specific Performance. When the plaintiff by his option has made specific performance impossible, Section 21 does not entitle him to seek damages. That position is common to both Section 2 of Lord Cairn’s Act, 1858 and Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. But in Indian

In this seminal Judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court struck down the draconian law targeting same sex relationship. This formalistic interpretation of Article 15 would render the constitutional guarantee against discrimination meaningless. For it would allow the State to claim that the discrimination was based on sex and another ground (‘Sex plus’) and hence outside the

As to the first the accused Laxmi Raj Shetty was entitled to tender the newspaper report from the Indian Express of the 29th and the regional newspapers of the 30th along with his statement under s. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Both the accused at the stage of their defence in denial

“But we do not think that the appellants can take refuge under the above order. What was extended by the above order of this Court was only “the period of limitation” and not the period upto which delay can be condoned in exercise of discretion conferred by the statute. The above order passed by this

Landmark Judgment, in regards with the duty of an Advocate. “The Counsel has time and again to choose between his duty to his client and his duty to the Court. This is a conflict often difficult to resolve; and he should not be under pressure to decide it wrongly. Whereas, when the Advocate puts his

In interpreting the statute, the court is guided by the terms of its provisions, the purpose underlying their adoption and the scheme which emerges from interrelated provisions and the nature of the provision. The court in the present case is interpreting the terms of a fiscal levy. The court here has to construe the scheme