Home
About
Publication
Internship
Assignment Centre
Notes
_Constitution
_Indian Penal Code
_Code of Criminal Procedure
_Civil Procedure Code
_Contract
_Arbitration
Legal Aid
Founder's Block

Legal Aid

Legal Drafts

Notes

Moot courts

0 Comments

Total Pageviews

Report Abuse

Search This Blog

October 202398
September 2023133

Sukanya Holdings Pvt. Ltd vs Jayesh H. Pandya & Anr.

by Legal Specs

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 ...

Daimler co., Ltd v. Continental Tyre and Rubber co. (Great Britain), Ltd.

by Legal Specs

CASE COMMENT: Daimler co., Ltd v. Continental Tyre and Rubber co. (Great Britain), Ltd., 1916 AC 307 Equivalent citation: (1916-1917) All ER Rep. 191 Bench: Earl of Halsbury Viscount Mersey Lord Kinner Lord Atkinson Lord Shaw of Dunfermline Lord Parker of Waddington Lord Sumner Lord Paramour APPELLANT: ……………………………………………………….DAIMLER CO. LTD. RESPONDENT:………………………………..CONTINENTAL TYRE AND RUBBER CO. YEAR OF JUDGEMENT: 1916 CITATION: (1916-1917) All ER Rep. 191 INTRODUCTION Under the Companies Act 2013, Company has been defined under Section 2 (20) i.e. company means “a company incorporated under the Companies Act 2013 or under any previous company law”, the formation of a company and its registration is done under this act. The company law doesn't define the strict legal meaning of a company. It has many advantages and a few disadvantages. The most important feature of company law is that it has a “...

T. SAREETHA v/s VENKATA SUBBAIAH

by Legal Specs

T. SAREETHA v/s VENKATA SUBBAIAH Summary : On July 1, 1983, Justice P.A. Choudary of the Andhra Pradesh High Court struck down Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which allowed the Court to pass an order for ‘restitution of conjugal rights.’ [1] In simple language, if the Court was convinced that either a husband or a wife had ‘without reasonable cause, withdrawn from the society of their spouse, then it could decree that the defaulting spouse was required to go back to the company of their partner – a decree that could be enforced by attaching the defaulter’s property. Justice Choudary held that Section 9 violated the rights to equality and privacy under the Constitution, and was accordingly void. ISSUE:- Whether Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act runs counter to Part III of the Constitution? JUDGMENT:- Sareetha challenged the constitutional validity of Section 9 of the Act in light of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the India...

Legal Aid

Post a Comment

0 Comments

Total Pageviews

Report Abuse

Search This Blog

Sukanya Holdings Pvt. Ltd vs Jayesh H. Pandya & Anr.

Daimler co., Ltd v. Continental Tyre and Rubber co. (Great Britain), Ltd.

T. SAREETHA v/s VENKATA SUBBAIAH

Social Handles

Most Popular

Sukanya Holdings Pvt. Ltd vs Jayesh H. Pandya & Anr.

MAHENDER RAM V HARNANDAN PRASAD

Daimler co., Ltd v. Continental Tyre and Rubber co. (Great Britain), Ltd.

Subscribe Us

Menu Footer Widget

Contact form