Plaintiff Is Not Obligated To Make A Prayer In The Plaint To Set Aside The Subsequent Sale Deed If It Is Executed With A Prior Knowledge Of Agreement To Sell

By a recent judgement, passed in the matter of Maharaj Singh And Ors. v. Karan Singh And Ors.[i], the Hon’ble Supreme Court [“SC”], upheld and relayed the observation made by a larger bench by deciding

The Applicable Custom Duty Shall Be The One Which Was In Force When The Bills Of Entry Are Presented

The Applicable Custom Duty Shall Be The One Which Was In Force When The Bills Of Entry Are Presented

In a recent ruling, a Division Bench of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court comprising of Hon’ble Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice Jitendra Jain clarified a crucial aspect of customs law, specifically the time when the

Delhi High Court Holds Employment Lock-In Period Clauses As Enforceable, And Disputes On These As Arbitrable

Delhi High Court Holds Employment Lock-In Period Clauses As Enforceable, And Disputes On These As Arbitrable

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court (“HC”) recently ruled that a reasonable lock-in period in an employment contract is lawful and thereby, does not infringe upon fundamental rights. The HC clarified that disputes arising from such

Code Of Civil Procedure 1908 Application Under Order Vii Rule 11 Cannot Be Rejected On The Ground That Written Statements Is Not Filed.

Code Of Civil Procedure 1908 | Application Under Order Vii Rule 11 Cannot Be Rejected On The Ground That Written Statements Is Not Filed

The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court (“HC”) on 24th June 2024, passed an order[1] pronouncing that, “The filing of a written statement is not a condition precedent for considering an application under Order VIII Rule 11

Latest Development On Circulars For Lookout, Wilful Defaulters And Fraud

Download PPT

Maharashtra Stamp Act Refund of Stamp Duty Cannots Be Denied on Mere Technical Grounds

Maharashtra Stamp Act | Refund of Stamp Duty Cannot Be Denied on Mere Technical Grounds

The Hon’ble Supreme Court (“SC”), in a recent decision[i], upheld and relayed an observation made in its earlier decision of Committee-GFIL v. Libra Buildtech Private Limited & Ors.[ii], wherein the Hon’ble SC observed that: “19.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8