Case Comment on HARVEY v. FACEY

COURT: Privy Council of Jamaica APPELANT: Harvey & Othrs. RESPONDENT: Facey & Othrs. CITATION: (1893) AC 552 BENCH: The Lord Chancellor, Lord Watson, Lord Hobhouse, Lord Macnaghten, Lord Morris, Lord Shand. [Delivered by Lord Morris] INTRODUCTION[1]: It is a significant case in the domain of the law of contract. It is an example of a

Cheque as A Negotiable Instrument

A STUDY OF LEGAL PROVISION Author: T. Bhavadharani, Government Law College, Madurai affiliated by Tamilnadu  Dr. Ambedkar Law University. INTRODUCTION:              Today, in this commercial world technologies are developed broadly.  The transactions in business are heavy for which we need safer and evidential proof.  It is a common practice for businessmen to make use of

Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain

Author: Aeshita Marwah, a student of University of Petroleum and Energy Studies Case commentary: Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain Bench: Krishnaiyer, V.R. Petitioner: Indira Nehru Gandhi (Smt.) Vs. Respondent: Raj Narain & Anr. Date of Judgment: 24/06/1975 Citation: 1975 AIR 1590 1975 SCC (2) 159 For many reasons, the case of Indira Gandhi v. Raj

Minerva Mills v. Union of India

Author: Aditi Saboo College: University of Petroleum and Energy Studies, Dehradun COURT: SUPREME COURT OF INDIACASE NO.: WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 356 OF 1977APPELANT: MINERVA MILLS LTD. AND ITS SHAREHOLDERSRESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIACITATION: AIR 1980 SC 1789JUDGES: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD (CHIEF JUSTICE), P.N. BHAGWATI, A.C. GUPTA, N.L. UNTWALIA, P.S. KAILASAM. INTRODUCTIONThe case of Minerva mills vs. Union

JOB ALERT: Legal Counsel – I- Flipkart

About Flipkart Flipkart is India’s largest e-commerce marketplace with a registered customer base of over 150 million. In the 10 years since we started, Flipkart has come to offer over 100 million products across 120+ categories including Smartphones, Books, Media, Consumer Electronics, Furniture, Fashion and Lifestyle. Launched in October 2007, Flipkart is known for its

KESAVANANDA BHARATI SRIPADAGALVARU V. STATE OF KERALA (CASE COMMENTARY)-

Ashutosh Tiwari, Mumbai University Thane Campus COURT The Supreme Court of India provided the judgment on this case CASE NUMBER Writ Petition (Civil)  135 of 1970 APPELLANT His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Others RESPONDENT The state of Kerala and Anr. CITATIONS JUDGES Thirteen judges’ bench of Supreme Court that decided this case comprised: S.M.

JOB ALERT- Joint Director (Law)- Last date – 14-04-2023

Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission invites applications from eligible candidates to consider filling up following existing / anticipated vacancies. The vacancies shall be filled up in accordance with the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (Management & Development of Human Resources) Regulations 2001 (as amended from time to time). The preferred mode of recruitment is Deputation. Essential Qualification