Category: Allied Laws

Archive for the ‘Allied Laws’ Category


Yumnam Ongbi Tampha Ibema Devi v. Yumnam Joykumar Singh (2009) 4 SCC 780

Indian Succession Act, 1925
S. 63: Execution of wills- Requirements of a valid will – The attesting witness should speak not only about the testator’s signature or affixing his mark to the will but also that each of the witnesses had signed the will in the presence of the testator – execution must be proved by at least one attesting witness, if an attesting witness is alive. [Indian Evidence Act, 1872 , S . 68]

Addanki Narayanappa v. Bhaskar Krishnappa AIR 1966 SC 1300/ 1966 SCR (3) 400

Indian Partnership Act, 1932
S. 5: Partnership not created by status – Property of the firm – Interest of a partner in partnership assets, whether a moveable or immoveable property – Partner’s rights during the existence of the partnership – Partner’s rights after the dissolution of the partnership or with his retirement from the partnership firm – Unregistered deed of release in a partnership firm whether admissible as evidence even though the partnership owned immoveable property – [S. 12, 14, 15, 29, 31, 48,  Indian Registration Act,  1908 ,S. 7(1), 37 , 48]

Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kusahanrao Goryantal ( MANU/SC/0521/ 2020 (SC)

Indian Evidence , Act 1872
S.65B – Admissibility of electronic records – Data – Electronic Records – Document – furnishing certificate [S.2(t), 65A, 65B(4), 69, Information Technology Act, 2000, 67C, Representation of the People Act , 1951 , S.80, 81]

Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma MANU/SC/0582/2020 ( 2020) 9 SCC 1(SC). www.itatonline. org

Hindu Succession Act, 1956,
S.6: Devolution of interest in coparcenary property – Interest in coparcenary property – Daughters have to be given equal share of co parcenary rights in share of property like the son even if born prior to Amendment to Hindu Succession Act. (Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005)

Keshavanada Bharati Sripadalvaru v. State of Kerala AIR 1973 SC 1461

Constitution of India ,1950
Art. 368 : Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and procedure therefor – Basic Structure of Constitution- Article 368, does not enable Parliament to alter the basic structure or framework of the Constitution. [Art .13(1), 14, 19(1)(f), 25, 26, 31, 32, Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1971 (Kerala Act 25 of 1971)

Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks Mumbai (1998) 8 SCC 1

Constitution of India ,1950
Art. 226 : Power of High Courts to issue certain writs – Alternative remedy – Not an absolute bar on writ jurisdiction [Trade and Merchandise Marks Act 1958 , 56(4)]

In re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (Suo Moto Writ Petition MANU/ SC/0654/2020 (SC) www.ittonline.org)

Constitution of India ,1950
Art. 141: Law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts with in territory of India – Covid-19 – Extension of limitation period due to Covid-19 Lock down- Service of all notices, summons and exchange of pleadings may be effected by e-mail, FAX, WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal etc in addition to service of the same document by e-mail simultaneously on the same date – The Reserve Bank of India may consider whether the validity period of a cheque under the Negotiable Instruments Act should be extended or not [Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 S.23(4), 29A, Banking Regulation Act,1949, S.35A, Commercial Courts Act, 2015, S.12A Constitution of India, 1949, Art 141, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, S.46, Limitation Act 1908 , S.5]

Maneka Gandhi v. UOI (1978) 1 SCC 248/1978 AIR 597 (SC)/1978 SCR (2) 621 (SC)

.Constitution of India ,1950
Art. 21:Protection of life and personal liberty – Natural Justice – Opportunity to be heard is universally recognized as an essential ingredient of principle of natural justice – Audi alteram partem – Even if not specifically provided for may be applicable by implication – Rules of natural Justice applicable to administrative action. [ Art . 14 ,19, Pass Port Act , 1976 , 10(3)(c ) ]

SBI through General Manager v. National Housing Bank & Ors (2013) 180 CompCas 15 (SC)/AIR 2013 SC 3478/(2013) 16 SCC 538/MANU/SC/0759/2013

Commissions of Inquiry Act 1952
S.3 Commission of Enquiry – Statements made before commission cannot be used as evidence before civil or criminal court – Conclusions based on such statements cannot be used as Evidence: [S.4 , 5, 6 Indian Evidence Act , 1872 , Special Courts Act ,1979, S. 3, 9 , 10 ]

Muthu Karuppan v. Parithi Ilamvazhuthi AIR 2011 SC 1645

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
S.2(c) : Criminal contempt- Filing of false affidavit with intent to mislead the court – To be proved beyond reasonable doubt – Consent of Advocate General before initiating Contempt proceedings. [S.12 , 15, Madras High Court Contempt of Court Rules, 1975]