Supreme Court

4th Nov, 2019

The State cannot enact a legislation providing an appeal directly to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court in its latest decision held that State Legislature cannot make law which takes away the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court and provides an appeal directly to the Supreme Court. The Court […]
2nd Nov, 2019

The provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 would have an over­riding effect over the Tea Act, 1953 and that no prior consent of the Central Government before initiation of the proceedings under Section 7 or Section 9 of the IBC would be required.

The Supreme Court in the matter of Duncans Industries Ltd. vs. A.J. Agrochem upheld the order of the NCLAT allowing the insolvency petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 initiated by […]
31st Oct, 2019

‘Amount Due’ not required to be proved in a proceeding under Negotiable Instruments Act in the same manner as if proving debt before Civil Court

The Supreme Court has observed that a complainant in a cheque bounce case need not prove the ‘amount due’ as if he is to prove a debt before civil court. The said ratio was held […]
30th Oct, 2019

Revenue Records do not confer title to a property, nor do they have any presumptive value on title:

The Supreme Court has reiterated that the revenue records do not confer title to a property nor do they have any presumptive value on the title.   The above mention observation was made in the […]
25th Oct, 2019

Purchaser of goods for Commercial Purpose is a ‘Consumer’ under Section 2 (1) (d) of COPRA, if he uses it himself for earning his livelihood

  The Supreme Court observed that if the commercial use of goods is by the purchaser himself for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment, such purchaser of goods is a ‘consumer’. […]
7th Oct, 2019

Petition filed under section 433 of Companies Act 1956 beyond the period of three-years mentioned in Article 137 of the Limitation Act is time-barred, and cannot therefore be proceeded further

The Supreme Court in the matter of Jignesh Shah & Anr. v Union of India & Ors. (W.P. Civil No. 455/2019), decided on 25.09.2019 set aside the judgment of NCLAT & NCLT admitting a winding […]
7th Oct, 2019

Witnesses To Sale Deed/Will Need Not Necessarily Know Its Contents

The Supreme Court has observed that the witnesses to documents such as Sale Deeds and Wills need not necessarily know what is contained in them.   The said observations were recorded in the matter of […]
3rd Oct, 2019

Father’s self acquired property given to son by way of Will/gift will retain the character of self acquired property and will not become ancestral property, unless a contrary intention is expressed in the testament.

The Supreme Court had observed that as per Mitakshara law of Succession, father’s self acquired property given to son by way of Will/gifts will retain the character of self acquired will retain the character of […]
28th Sep, 2019

Consumer Fora have Jurisdiction to decide the legality of Statutory Fees.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 16.09.2019, passed by three- judges Bench in Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (Now GREATER LUDHIANA AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY i.e GLADA) versus Vidya Chetal bearing SLP (C) […]
25th Sep, 2019

Self-Serving statements on Income without any proof of financial resources won’t suffice to prove Readiness and Willingness in Suit for Specific Performance

The Supreme Court had observed that self-serving statements on income without any proof of financial resources is not sufficient to prove that plaintiff in a suit for specific performance was ready and willing to perform […]
24th Sep, 2019

Grant of leave is a necessary prerequisite to entertain a suit under Section 92, Code of Civil Procedure 1908

  The Supreme Court has observed that in every suit filed under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure the grant of leave is necessary before the said suit can be said to be […]
16th Sep, 2019

The Courts, while deciding a petition for appointment of Arbitrator, after the amendment of 2015, should restrict themselves to the question as to the existence of an arbitration clause and should not go into preliminary objections/ grounds.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 05.09.2019, passed by three- judges Bench in M/s Mayavati Trading Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pradyuat Deb Burman bearing Civil Appeal No. 7023/2019, overruled the judgment in United India […]