Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Supreme Court was dealing with a matter pertaining to the genuineness of a registered Will executed by the testator in favour of his brother’s daughter without any mention of his widow or daughter.
Kerala High Court observed that when the suit is dismissed on finding that it is barred by law, the court fees cannot be refunded.
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of M.R. Shah* and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ., explained the legal propositions governing Order 6 Rule
Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court: While deciding the instant appeal wherein substantial questions of law were raised vis-a-vis SectionS 80,
Delhi High Court: Prateek Jalan, J., expressed that, For the purposes of an order under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC,
Supreme Court: The bench of L. Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai*, JJ has lucidly explained the law on rejection of plaints under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC
Kerala High Court: R. Narayana Pisharadi, J., while allowing the instant petition, set aside the order of trial Court, thereby allowing the
Delhi High Court: A Division Bench of Hima Kohli and Subramonium Prasad, JJ., while observing a matrimonial application, observed that, The plaint must
Himachal Pradesh High Court: Sandeep Sharma J., upheld the impugned judgment and dismissed the petition. The facts, in a nutshell, are that
Supreme Court: Answering a reference the 3-judge bench of RF Nariman, Navin Sinha and Indira Banerjee, JJ has held that if a
Madhya Pradesh High Court: Prakash Shrivastava, J., dismissed the revision petition filed by the respondents under Section 115 CPC where they challenged
Hyderabad High Court: In the instant appeal, the question arose that whether a counter-claim can be rejected in terms of Order