“To be ‘substantial’, a question of law must be…”. Supreme Court summarises principles relating to Section 100 CPC
Supreme Court: The bench of Indira Banerjee* and JK Maheshwari, JJ has explained that to be ‘substantial’, a question of law must
Supreme Court: The bench of Indira Banerjee* and JK Maheshwari, JJ has explained that to be ‘substantial’, a question of law must
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta* and Ajay Rastogi, JJ has held that the High Court is
Delhi High Court: A Division Bench of Vipin Sanghi and Rajnish Bhatnagar, JJ., in regard to Triple Talaq observed that, Prima facie it
Himachal Pradesh High Court: Jyotsna Rewal Dua J., dismissed the appeal on ground of impugned judgment/orders being devoid of any infirmity. The
Supreme Court: The bench of Navin Sinha and Indira Banerjee, JJ has held that when no substantial question of law is formulated,
Supreme Court: Explaining the law on transfer of cases from High Courts to the Supreme Court, the single judge bench of Aniruddha
Kerala High Court: A.M. Babu, J. dismissed a regular second appeal filed by a lady on the ground that no substantial question
Himachal Pradesh High Court: Ajay Mohan Goel, J. dismissed the appeal on finding no substantial question of law involved in the appeal.
Delhi High Court: A Division Bench of S. Muralidhar and Talwant Singh, JJ. dismissed an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order
Punjab and Haryana High Court: Sudip Ahluwalia, J. disposed of the matter directing the parties that a disputed land cannot be used
Madhya Pradesh High Court: This second appeal was filed before the Bench of Vivek Rusia, J., by appellant against the judgment and
High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur: The Court recently heard an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure