Skip to main content

Posts

Featured

Madras High Court recently struck down an amendment brought out by the State Legislation in 2020 to the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act bringing Wakf properties under the ambit of the act.

The Madras High Court recently struck down an amendment brought out by the State Legislation in 2020 to the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act bringing Wakf properties under the ambit of the act. The bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that since an amendment was brought into the central act- Wakf Act, which already provided a mechanism to deal with encroachments, the state legislature was repugnant and void. The court emphasized that Section 85 of the Central legislation had expressly prohibited the jurisdiction of other authorities and thus there was no scope of harmony between the central and state legislation.“ The elementary rule of interpretation is to read the provisions harmoniously, so that the provisions of one statute do not become a dead letter. Viewing the matter from any perspective, there is no possibility to harmonise. Having left with no choice, we are declaring the State Legislation as repu

Latest Posts

stridhan property does not become a joint property of the wife and the husband. The latter “has no title or independent dominion over the property.

'Stridhan' Is Wife's Absolute Property, Husband Holds No Title Over It: Supreme Court Reiterates

The provisions of Order 34 Rule 5 CPC is available to a mortgagor in the case of a mortgage decree till the confirmation of sale - provisions of Order 34 Rule 5 CPC stand on a different footing and on a higher plane from the provisions of Order 21 Rule 89, 90 and 92 of the CPC - there can be no clog on redemption until the sale is finally concluded by orders of Court or by confirmation of sale or by sale becoming absolute as per Order 21 Rule 92 CPC

Ancestral Property - father died intestate - Sons sold entire property before 2005 - even daughters not coparceners, they are entitled to share in father's share which was allotted to him under notional partition.

suit for partition, decree was passed - Amin filed a report stating that a 3rd party has put up construction in the suit land and prayed for suitable orders for removing the obstruction - removal of obstruction ordered with police aid - obstruction removed delivery effected - Respondent filed petition under order 21 Rule 97 - rejected as Unnumbered - High court ordered to number the petition.

Power Of Attorney Holders Cannot Give Evidence About Facts Which Are Within Personal Knowledge Of Persons They Represent: Supreme Court

Delay of 1734 days in filing suit - Dispute between an advocate and litigant cannot constitute ground to condone delay of 1734 days - Delay not liable to be condoned.

court directed 8th respondent to furnish security - an order passed in the application filed under Order 38 rule 5 would not come under purview of appealable orders appeal not maintainable.

Even though a duty is cast upon the Advocate to represent his client, the contention of the revision petitioner that he was waiting for a call from his Advocate and since there was no response, he did not contact his Advocate and in the above said circumstances, the ex-parte decree came to be passed, cannot be accepted.

Allegations of negligence against counsel is not a ground to condone delay because the party has an equal responsibility to follow up the matter.