Author name: chambersofsumitsuri.in

In the context of deciding the scope of Order VIII Rule 10, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Asma Lateef & Anr. v. Shabbir Ahmad & Ors. [2024] 1 S.C.R. 517 : 2024 INSC 36, held that the court is not to act blindly upon the admission of a fact made by the defendant in his written […]

In M. Subramaniam and Another v. S. Janaki and Another , (2020) 16 SCC 728, the Hon’ble Supreme Court inter-alia held that the contention that the High Court could not have directed the registration of an FIR with a direction to the police to investigate and file the final report can be accepted in view

Recently, the Supreme Court in Rajeswari Chandrasekar Ganesh v. State of T.N., (2023) 12 SCC 472, after considering the judicial precedents on the subject, has observed and held that it is well established that in issuing the writ of habeas corpus in the case of minors, the jurisdiction which the Court exercises is an inherent

Recently, Delhi High Court while adjudicating a claim on coparcenary property by survivorship in Sh. Neeraj Bhatia v. Sh.Ravinder Kumar Bhatia, 2024 : DHC: 5341- DB held that coparcenary is a creature of Hindu law and it cannot be created by an agreement of the parties. Coparcenary is a legal phenomenon which existed prior to

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pratima Chowdhury v. Kalpana Mukherjee, (2014) 4 SCC 196 clarified and explained the rules governing promissory estoppel. It held that the rule of estoppel is a doctrine based on fairness. It postulates the exclusion of the truth of the matter. All for the sake of fairness. A perusal of the

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court recently in Anchit Sachdeva & Anr v. Sudesh Sachdeva & Ors. 2024:DHC:9629 held that material details of existence of Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) have to be specifically pleaded in the plaint in suits for partition of coparcenary property (or ancestral property), HUF cannot be presumed to exist. DHC while affirming

Recently, a crucial issue arose before Delhi High Court in Satish Kumar v State 2024:DHC:9618 as to whether sole testimony of the victim in a sexual offence can lead to conviction in the absence of any other corroboration. The Hon’ble Court relying upon decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ganesan v. State , reported

The Hon’ble Supreme Court recently in Perumal Raja @ Perumal v. State, Rep. by Inspector of Police [2024] 1 S.C.R. 87 : 2024 INSC 13 summarized the principles governing admissibility of evidence under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, and held that expression ‘custody’  under Section 27 of the Evidence Act does not mean formal

Recently, Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Sapna and Anr v Shivesh Garg 2024:DHC:9490 elaborated on scope of grant or denial of leave to defend a suit under Order XXXVII CPC. Relying on and quoting extensively from IDBI Trusteeship Services Limited vs. Hubtown Limited, (2017) 1 SCC 568, the Hon’ble Court laid down the following principles

The Supreme Court in Dahiben v. Arvindbhai recorded that the remedy of the unpaid transferor is to file a suit for recovery but the transferor cannot maintain the relief for cancellation of a registered title deed. Further, a Coordinate Bench of the Delhi High Court has also held in Praleen Chopra v. Honey Bhagat that