Sections 41 and 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, protect transferees in good faith, focusing on ostensible ownership and unauthorized transfers, respectively, emphasizing reasonable care and representation.

In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, the Supreme Court affirmed privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21, integral to dignity and autonomy, yet subject to reasonable restrictions.

In Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India, the Supreme Court invalidated the 1969 bank nationalization act, citing inadequate compensation and violation of property rights, thus breaching Articles 14, 19, and 31.

The Supreme Court in Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan upheld the 17th Constitutional Amendment, validating its addition of laws to the Ninth Schedule, aimed at supporting socio-economic land reforms.

In Y. Narasimha Rao and Ors v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi and Ors (1991), the Supreme Court of India ruled that a foreign court’s decree dissolving a marriage is unenforceable if it lacks jurisdiction under Indian law. The Missouri court’s divorce decree, based on “irretrievable breakdown of marriage,” was

In Balvant N. Viswamitra and Ors. v. Yadav Sadashiv Mule (Dead) through Lrs. and Ors., the Supreme Court of India held that a decree passed by a court of competent jurisdiction is not void, even if erroneous, unless the court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter or the parties. The High Court’

In Addanki Narayanappa and Ors. v. Bhaskara Krishtappa and Ors. (1966), the Supreme Court of India clarified that a partner’s interest in a firm during its existence is not specific to any particular asset, whether movable or immovable. Partners have no claim over specific properties but only to a s

“Indian courts are not bound to recognize foreign divorce decrees

In In Re: The Berubari Union and Exchange of Enclaves (1960), the Supreme Court of India held that ceding Indian territory to a foreign state, even for settling boundary disputes, requires a constitutional amendment under Article 368. The Court clarified that such cessions cannot be made under Artic

In International Woolen Mills v. Standard Wool (U.K.) Ltd., the Supreme Court of India held that a foreign decree cannot be enforced in India if it is not passed on merits or violates principles of natural justice. The case involved an ex parte decree by a UK court, which lacked substantive examinat

The case of Bhuri Nath & Ors. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir upheld the constitutionality of the Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Act, 1988, which transferred shrine management to a public board. The Supreme Court ruled that the Baridars’ customary rights to collect offerings could be extinguished for pub

In Shyam Narayan Chouksey v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court addressed whether playing the National Anthem in cinema halls should be mandatory. Initially, it required the anthem to be played before films, with attendees standing in respect. However, the Court later revised this, making the

In Bijoe Emmanuel & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors. (1986), the Supreme Court of India ruled that expelling students for refusing to sing the National Anthem due to their religious beliefs violated their Fundamental Rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 25(1). The Court held that standing respectfully d

In Dalmia Cement Ltd. v. Galaxy Traders & Agencies Ltd. (2001), the Supreme Court of India held that a dishonored cheque can be presented multiple times during its validity, with each dishonor giving rise to a new cause of action under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court overtur

In Ramlal, Motilal, and Chhotelal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., the Supreme Court clarified that under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, a party seeking condonation of delay must only explain the delay that occurred after the last day of the prescribed period, not their entire conduct during the limitatio

In Union of India (UOI) v. West Coast Paper Mills Ltd., the Supreme Court ruled that the limitation period for filing suits to recover excess freight charges should be calculated from the final adjudication date by the highest court, not the initial tribunal order. The Court clarified that claims fo

In N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998), the Supreme Court of India held that the length of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is immaterial, provided a reasonable and bona fide explanation is given. The Court emphasized that procedural rules should not obstruct justice, especially wh

In M.S. Narayana Menon v. State of Kerala (2006), the Supreme Court clarified that the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is rebuttable. The accused is not required to disprove liability beyond a reasonable doubt but only needs to raise a credible defense that cre

In Sampelly Satyanarayana Rao v. Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Ltd., the Supreme Court ruled that post-dated cheques issued as security can attract liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act if they represent a legally enforceable debt at the time of dishonor. The Cou

In K.D. Kamath & Co. v. CIT (1971), the Supreme Court of India held that the validity of a partnership depends on the genuine intention of the partners to share profits and losses, irrespective of who controls the business. The Court ruled that extensive control by one partner does not negate the ex

In Cox v. Hickman (1860), the House of Lords held that participation in profits does not necessarily constitute a partnership. The case involved trustees managing a business to repay creditors. The trustees, including Hickman, did not intend to form a partnership but acted in a fiduciary capacity. T

In Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra (2014), the Supreme Court of India ruled that complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act must be filed in the court with territorial jurisdiction where the cheque is dishonoured, not where it was presented or the statutory notic

In the case of Union of India v. West Coast Paper Mills Ltd., the Supreme Court of India ruled that the period of limitation for filing a suit should be computed from the date of final adjudication by the highest court, not from the initial tribunal order. This decision reinforced the principle that

In the case Shruti Agnihotri v. Anand Kumar Srivastava, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) held that a marriage certificate is valid proof of a Hindu marriage only if the marriage ceremonies, including saptapadi, were duly performed. The Court found that the respondent failed to prove the marr