legal proposition

Interesting and Useful Legal Propositions : -  

🔅 Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI [2015] GCtR 3913 (SC) : A person ought not to be dragged into Court merely because a complaint has been filed.

🔅 Sher Singh @ Partapa v. State of Haryana [2015] GCtR 4719 (SC) : Where the same word is used in a section and/or in sundry segments of a statute, it should be attributed the same meaning, unless there are compelling reasons to do otherwise.

🔅 Sudhir N. v. State of Kerala [2015] GCtR 4720 (SC) : "When the maximum marks to be obtained in the entrance test for admission to the institutions for higher education including higher medical education is fixed, the State cannot adversely affect the standards laid down by the union government."

🔅 Laxmidevamma v. Ranganath [2015] GCtR 4721 (SC) : In exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, concurrent findings of fact cannot be upset by the High Court unless the findings so recorded are shown to be perverse.

🔅 Executive Officer, Antiyur Town Panchayat v. G. Arumugam [2015] GCtR 4722 (SC) : "Court must always take a justice-oriented approach while considering an application for condonation of delay".

🔅 Westarly Dkhar v. Sehekaya Lyngdoh [2015] GCtR 4723 (SC) : United Khasi-Jaintia Hills Autonomous District (Administration of Justice) Rules, 1953 have been made under Paragraph 4 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India. It is clear from Rules 28, 29 and 47 of said Rules, 1953 that an appeal is provided as a matter of right from all “decisions” of a Subordinate District Council Court to the District Council Court.

🔅 Ahmed Shah v. State of Rajasthan [2015] GCtR 4724 (SC) : "To invoke Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, 4 requisites must be satisfied namely:- (i) it was a sudden fight; (ii) there was no premeditation; (iii) the act was committed in a heat of passion; and (iv) the assailant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner."

🔅 Narender Singh v. Prachi Jain [2024] GCtR 527 (Delhi) : "It defies logic as to why a person who could afford to give a loan of 1.63 Crores would be required to take a loan of 19 Lakhs from friends and relatives."

🔅 Narender Singh v. Prachi Jain [2024] GCtR 527 (Delhi) : "It defies logic as to why a person who could afford to give a loan of 1.63 Crores would be required to take a loan of 19 Lakhs from friends and relatives."

🔅 Arrow Engineering Limited v Punit Jitendra Chande [2024] GCtR 529 (Bombay) : "If immovable property forming the subject matter of the Agreement is not described to enable its identity with certainty, the Agreement is not capable of specific performance and is therefore void."