Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment on, Supreme Court’s interference in concurrent findings of fact, dating back to the year 1954.
The Division bench agreed to the monthly occupation charges but disagreed on the time period for payment.
Calcutta High Court opined that such disputes should be resolved by the Civil Court.
The first reference under Article 143 was made in the Delhi Laws case, wherein, the President referred three questions to the Supreme Court for its opinion.
Supreme Court quashed the original complaint and said that respondent miserably failed to discharge his burden to prove deficiency in service on part of the bank.
Whether the State had the legislative competence to levy duty on the sale of electricity to an intermediary distributor is a question of law.
Supreme Court: In an important ruling on Res Judicata, the 3-judge bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud*, Vikram Nath and Hima Kohli, JJ