supreme court case summaries for students

⇨ Gundaji (Appellant/ Plaintiff) contracted with Ramchandran (Respondent/ defendant) to buy land from him. Therefore, the Title Suit B filed for specific performance of the agreement for sale of land is hit by the provisions of Order II CPC (read O-2, R-2 with constructive res judicata). Mechalec Engrs. ⇨ The plaintiff explained that the omission consisted of a failure to mention that his firm, Ganesh Trading Co. Karnal, had been actually dissolved a month before filing of the suit. 226 of the Constitution, operates as res judicata in a regular suit with respect to the same matter between the same parties? ⇨ The SC held that since the four conditions were satisfied in the case and thus the principle of res judicata has to operate. Question of Law before the Supreme Court: ⇨ Could the High Court interfere in exercise of its powers under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, with the discretion of the Additional District Judge, in granting unconditional leave to defend to the defendant-appellant upon grounds which even a perusal of the order of the High Court shows to be reasonable? The Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co., Ltd. Citation: 1962 AIR 1314, 1962 SCR Supl. Fight for everyone's rights - support the ACLU. Summary of Cases on CPC Case No-1 Gundaji Satwaji Shinde v. Ramchandra Bhikaji Joshi AIR 1979 SC 653 An appeal under Article-133 of the Constitution to the Supreme Court on a certificate of High Court.

An appeal under Article-133 of the Constitution to the Supreme Court on grant of a certificate of fitness to appeal by the High Court of Patna. This month marks 50 years since the landmark Supreme Court ruling that cemented students’ rights to free speech in public schools, Tinker v. Des Moines. (1) No person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an all-India service or a civil service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. The court held that the First Amendment did not stop the school district from disciplining the student for giving a “lewd and indecent speech” at the assembly. 3.

31,000/ to Kalipada Das. Being a school-sponsored paper, the school had an interest in preventing published articles that were considered inappropriate. on non-commercial transactions? ⇨ ONGC filed a summary suit U/O-37 before the Bombay High Court against SBI. The Supreme Court sided with the students. ⇨ Judgment of HC affirmed. ⇨ Hence the SLP before the Supreme Court. ⇨ The appellants filed a suit for recovery of damages for breach of contract on the basis of 10% of the gross profits of the respondents, claiming around 50 lacs rupees. Appellant is not a bonafides. After defeats at the lower courts, he won 7-2 at the Supreme Court on February 24, 1969. It was further held that the proposed amendment of the plaint was likely to change the foundation of the suit by introducing the distinct cause of action.

We’re being joined for part of it by journalism students and advisers from Parkland’s Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, who are collecting stories of how students are using their First Amendment rights as part of the Schoolhouse Gate Project. University or College Faculty/Administration 14 could not be construed as meaning 10% of the gross profits as provided in cl. Sometimes, the ACLU has had to get involved to make sure that schools respect student speech, successfully defending the right of students to wear an anti-abortion armband, a pro-LGBT T-shirt, and shirts critical of political figures. In as much as having regard to the provisions of Section 34 of the C.P.C. In the said plaint he exclusively reserved his right to file another suit for getting the sale deed executed. ⇨ The appellant tried his best to arrange the requisite money for the court fee but was unable to do so. 60,000 drawn by the defendants (appellants herein) in favour of the plaintiff and which, on presentation to the Bank, was dishonoured. 45,000/- was paid leaving only a nominal sum of Rs. For lawyers; For students… Civ. The respondents did not file any written statements or appeared on the date of hearing of the suit.

Note: This is a 1957 case. ⇨ Whether the Tribunal was right in refusing to allow the appellant’s counsel to appear and take part in the proceedings on and after the 20th of March, 1953, and whether that is sufficient ground to give the High Court jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution? The name is not an assumed or fictitious one. ⇨ The defendants filed an application U/O-7, R-11, seeking dismissal of the plaint of the plaintiff on the grounds that it shows no cause of action (See-O-7, R-11(a). The case— Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District—involved “Drew,” a boy with autism who made almost no progress on his IEP goals.

Case summaries. The letter to the bank further stated that in case the guarantee is not renewed by the contractor by a particular date, this letter may be considered as a letter claiming liquidated damages and the bank guarantee be immediately encashed in their favour. ( Log Out /  It is an afterthought of the appellant. ⇨ The defendant applied for leave to defend the suit under R. 3 of O-37. ⇨ She moved to the High Court in appeal. The only consequence of the appellant counsel not able to give just or unavoidable reason preventing his appearance on 17th to 19th could be that he shall not be allowed to reopen the proceedings of 17th to 19th, but that would not prevent him to participate in further proceedings. The defendant further stated that the suit was incompetent for want of registration of the firm and was struck by the provisions of Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act. 14 the parties named a sum of money to be paid as liquidated damages, it excluded the right to claim an unascertained sum as damages. Change ), You are commenting using your Facebook account. Leave granted 3. School Board Member Without evidence that a rule is needed to avoid disturbance of school discipline or impact the rights of others, prohibiting expression of opinion is not allowed under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Appeal dismissed with costs. ⇨ Held, that the case involved a substantial question of law and the appellants were entitled to the certificate of fitness to appeal as of right. Questions of law before the Supreme Court. 10 of the agreement the appellants were entitled to remuneration equal to 10% of the gross profits of the respondents subject to a minimum of Rs. The court discusses the power of review of court under Section 114 read with Order 47, Rule 1 of CPC.

October 30, 2015 by Jonathan Stahl (credit: dhendrix73) Education is a hallmark of civic life in America, so it’s no surprise that it’s been at the center of many landmark controversies over the years.
85-A for reference of the issue to the competent authority under the Tenancy Act. By wearing armbands, the students were considered quiet and passive.