Yusuf Abdul Aziz v. State of Bombay, 1954 SCR 930
Section 497 of IPC is not ultra vires Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India on the ground that it is only the man, who is held liable for adultery and not the wife with whom adultery is committed. The wife is saved from the purview of section and is not punished as an abettor because the sex is a reasonable and sound classification accepted by the Constitution of India, which provides that the State can make special provisions for women and children vide Article 15 clause (3) of the Constitution of India.
Federal Character Of Indian Soil
State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCR 34
The Indian Union is federal. But the extent of federalism in it is largely watered down by the needs of progress and development of a country which has to be nationally integrated, politically and economically co-ordinated and socially, intellectually and spiritually uplifted.
Readiness And Willingness In Contract
Kommisetti v. Karamsetti Venkateswarulu, AIR 1971 AP 279
To come within the expression “readiness and willingness” it is not necessary for a person to prove that on the due date he had the goods actually in his possession. It is quite sufficient if he is able to prove that he had the control of the requisite goods or that he had the capacity to deliver them to the purchaser when called upon to do so. Further a party in this contention will not be entitled to the specific performance of a contract if he sets up a false plea, and also when he is not ready and willing to perform the contract.
Unnecessary Parties To Suit
Lane v. Watts, 234 US 525; Hawkins v. Gardiner, 1 WR 345
Persons without interest in the suit are neither necessary nor proper parties. Further, one against whom no relief is sought and whose rights will not be affected if the defendant fails or a person who has assigned or disposed of his interest in the subjectmatter should not be made a party to the action. A person who has acquired from the defendant a knowledge of a secret invention for which the plaintiff claims protection, is not a necessary party. The parties having no interest in the controversy, although they are generally involved with the plaintiff, cannot properly be made party plaintiffs.