Sukanya Holdings Pvt. Ltd vs Jayesh H. Pandya & Anr. Before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India NAME OF CASE Sukanya Holdings Pvt. Ltd vs Jayesh H. Pandya & Anr CITATION 2003 SC DATE OF JUDGEMENT 14 th April, 2003 APPELLANT Sukanya Holdings Pvt. Ltd RESPONDENT Jayesh H. Pandya and Anr BENCH/ JUDGE M.B Shah and Arun Kumar STATUTES INVOLVED Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1940 Sukanya Holdings Pvt. Ltd vs Jayesh H. Pandya & Anr Before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India INTRODUCTION Referring a case to arbitration where it involves the right of third parties has been a matter of contention where there has been various disagreement between courts. Sukanya Holdings is a landmark case in which the question arose as to whether non-s
TITLE OF THE CASE: MAHENDER RAM V HARNANDAN PRASAD CITATION: AIR 1958 PAT 445 COURT: PATNA HIGH COURT BENCH: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.L. UNTWALIA Reputation is an asset to each and every person. Any type of deliberate false communication, either written or spoken, that can harm a person’s reputation or decreases the respect, regard or confidence of a person; or induces disparaging, or a hostile or disagreeable opinion or feeling against a person is known as defamation . Article 19(2) has imposed reasonable exemption to freedom of speech and expression granted under Article 19(1) (a). Contempt of court, defamation and incitement to an offence are some exceptions [1] .The essentials for successful defamation suit are: ■ Statement must be Defamatory ■ Statement must refer to the Plaintiff ■ Statement must be Published ■ Statement must be false In the case of Mahender Ram v Harnandan Prasad [2]
RAMCHANDRAM RICE & OIL MILLS LTD. V. THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER AIR 1943 Pat 408 FACTS OF THE CASE - 1. The plaintiff company - Ramchandram Rice & Oil Mills Ltd.- had despatched hundred of canistersfull of mustard oil, which was manufactured by them and sold under their brand. These canisters were lying at the Purulia railway station for delivery to the customer. 2. After about 400 tins had been delivered to the customer, the defendant (the Municipal Commissioners) applied under the Municipal Act for the issue of a search warrant on the ground that the said oil was contaminated and emitted a bad odour. 3. On the same day, the Sanitary Inspector of Purulia Municipality along with the defendants went to the railway station yard to detain the mustard oil and in spite of the protests made by the plaintiff company agent that the oil was pure and meant for human consumption, they detained the oil canisters. 4. On the next day, the 600 tins of mus
0 Comments