Author: Rishi Tibrewal, Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University Court – Supreme Court of India Case Number – 4412 and 4413 of 1985 Appellant – Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited and Ors. Respondent – Brojo Nath Ganguly and Ors. Citation – 1986 AIR 1571, 1986 SCR (2) 278 Bench/Judges – Justice D.P. Madon , Justice
Author: Malvika Sharma, Law College Dehradun. Case Name: NALSA V. UNION OF INDIA& Ors Court: Supreme Court of India Date: 15 April 2014 Citation: 2014 5 SCC 438 Bench: K.S. Radhakrishnan, A.K. Sikri Petitioner: National Legal Service Authority Respondents: Union of India & Ors INTRODUCTION On 9 November 1995 under the Legal Service Authority Act
Author- Siddharth Shankar Singh Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Patiala Specifics of the Case: · Court: Kings Bench Division · Case Number: 284 · Appellant: Mr. Powell · Respondent: Mr. Lee · Citation: (1908) 99 LT 284 Introduction: A/c to The Indian contract act, 1872: A contract is, in a nutshell, an agreement that could be enforced by the
Case Analysis on: Sakal Papers (P) Ltd., And Others vs The Union Of India CASE NAME: Sakal Papers (P) Ltd., And Others vs The Union Of India COURT: Supreme Court Of India JURISDICTION: Original Jurisdiction Of the Supreme Court Under article 32 of constitution of India. CASE NO.: Petitions nos. 331 of 1960 and 67-68
Author: Anisha Tak, Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab Court– Court of Common Pleas Case Number– 35 of 1862 Appellant– Paul Felthouse Respondent– William Bindley Citation– [1862] EWHC CP J35 Judges– Honourable Willes J., Byles J. and Keating J. Introduction Felthouse v. Bindley is a landmark judgment that dealt with the question of acceptance
Author: Nandinee Singh, Amity Law School, Noida. Court: Supreme Court of India Full case name: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. Decided: 20 December 1986 Citation(s): 1987 SCR (1) 819; AIR 1987 965 Appellant: M.C. Mehta Vs. Respondent: UOI and others Judges sitting: P.N. Bhagwati (Chief Justice), G.L. Misra Rangnath Oza, M.M.
Author: Shreyansh Rathi, Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Patiala Court: Court of Appeal of England And Wales (Civil Division) Appellant: Mr. Balfour Respondent: Mrs. Balfour Equivalent Citations: (1919) 2 KB 571 Judges: Lord Justice Warrington, Lord Justice Duke, LordJustice Atkin Introduction Intention to create Legal Relations is one of the most important essentials of
Author: Sakshi Tulsyan, University of Petroleum and Energy Studies, Dehradun Court- High Court of Andhra Pradesh Case Number- Cri. Petn. Nos. 2601 and 2602 of 2003 Petitioners- Syed Asifuddin and others Respondent– State of Madhya Pradesh Citation- 2005 Cri LJ 4314 Judge- Justice V.V.S Rao Facts The Reliance Infocomm Ltd., under the scheme of Dhirubhai Ambani Pioneer,
M/S VOLTAS LTD BOMBAY VS UNION OF INDIA &ORS Author- Stuti Agarwal, School of Law, Christ (Deemed to be University) Court- Supreme Court of India Case No 2252 of 1994 Appellant – Voltas Limited, Bombay Respondents – Union of India (UOI) & Ors. Equivalent Citation – 1995 AIR 1881, 1995 SCC Sulp. (2) 498 Honourable
Author: SHUBHANKAR DAS, Institute of Law, NIRMA University, Ahmedabad Case Name: Automobiles Dealers Association, Hathras, U.P. & Ors. Vs Global Automobiles Limited & Anr., 2012 Case Number: Case No. 33 of 2011 Court: Competition of commission of India, New Delhi Decided on: 3rd July 2012 Relevant Acts/ section: section 2, 3, 4, 19 and 26
Author: Vishakha Jaiprakash Thanvi, TMV Lokmanya Tilak Law College VIBHOR ANAND & ORS. VS VICE-CHANCELLOR, GURU GOBIND INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY Court: High Court of New Delhi Case no: W.P.(C) No.3163/2010 Date of decision: 07th December 2010 Petitioner: Vibhor Anand & Ors. Respondent: Vice-Chancellor, Guru Gobind Indraprastha University & Ors Introduction: The Bar Council of India is
CASE COMMENT Author: Ruth Vaiphei, Assistant professor National Law University, Jodhpur Smt. Neelam vs Ram Asrey (2020) Case No. 104 of 2015 High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Decided on October 21, 2020) Legal conundrum on paternity determination is recurrent phenomenon since courts either rely upon the provisions under section 112 of Indian Evidence Act,1872
Author: Poorvi Sirothia, Kirit P. Mehta School Of Law Devidas vs State of Maharashtra Court: High Court of Bombay in Aurangabad Case NO: 2074 0f 2002 Bench: Aurangabad Appellant: Devidas Ramachandra Tuljapurkar Respondent: State of Maharashtra & Ors. Decided on: 18.2.2015 Introduction “In May 2015, the Indian Supreme Court conveyed a judgment in which it
Court: Supreme Court of India Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of India Case No.: Criminal Appeal no. 844 of 2015 Bench: Justice T.S Thakur and Justice R. Banumati Appelant: S.R Sukumar Respondent: S. Sunaad Raghuram Decided on: Second July 2015 Introduction The fundamental issue which is dealt with by Supreme Court, in this case, is regarding
CASE NAME: VISHAKA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN, AIR 1997 SC 3011 COURT: BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13th AUGUST 1997 BENCH: J.S VERMA, SUJATA V. MANOHOR, B.N. KIRPAL FACTS Barware Devi was a social worker in a programmed initiated by the state government of Rajasthan aiming to curb the evil
