Editorials       Cover Story   Letters
 Subscribe Now  Contact Us
Search  
 
Book Reviews
Case Study
Constitution of India
Cover Story
Crime File
Cyber Space
Good Living
Harvard Law School
Health & Fitness
Permanent Imprint Leading
   Cases
Know Your Judge
The Law and The Celebrity
Legal Articles
Legal Events
Law for Other Species
Law School Confidential
Legal Scanner
Legal Trotternama
Media Scan
Potpourri
Reasoning The Reasons
Street Lawyer
Study Abroad
Supreme Court Cases
Thinkers & Theory
Top Law Schools
Universal Law of Success
--------------- Print Magazine --------------
 
  May 2016
 
  April 2016
 
 
 
 
LEADING CASES
Secret of Absolving Adulteries

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.

 

 
LAWYERS UPDATE
(Print Version)
Rs. 600/- per year
(Registered Post & Courier)
     
 

New Releases by UNIVERSAL's

     To avail discounts and for more details write to us at marketing.in@lexisnexis.com

Home     :      About Us     :      Subscribe     :      Advertise With Us    :       Privacy     :      Copyright     :      Feedback     :      Contact Us

Copyright © Universal Book Traders. All material on this site is subject to copyright. All rights reserved.
No part of this material may be reproduced, transmitted, framed or stored in a retrieval system for public or private
use without the written permission of the publisher. This site is developed and maintained by Universal Legal Infosolutions.
Powered by: Universal Book Traders