Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Another area of tort that developed in India which differs from the UK is the notion of constitutional torts. Creating constitutional torts is a public law remedy for violations of rights, generally by agents of the state, and is implicitly premised on the strict liability principle. [ 63 ]
Three Judges Cases: 1981 S.P. Gupta v. Union of India [37] Established the Collegium system of the Indian Judicial System. 1993 Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India [38] Struck down the 99th Amendment of the Constitution of India and the proposal of the National Judicial Appointments Commission. 1998 In re Special ...
Supreme Court of India: Full case name: M.C.Mehta v. Kamal Nath and Ors. Decided: 13 December 1996: Citation (1997) 1 SCC 388: Court membership; Judges sitting: Kuldip Singh, S. Saghnr Ahma: Case opinions; The public trust doctrine, as discussed by the Court in this judgment was a part of the law of the land: Decision by: Kuldip Singh
"Justice Khanna was right in holding that the recognition of the right to life and personal liberty under the Constitution does not denude the existence of that right, apart from it nor can there be a fatuous assumption that in adopting the Constitution the people of India surrendered the most precious aspects of the human persona, namely, life ...
In India, as in the majority of common law jurisdictions, the standard of proof in tort cases is the balance of probabilities as opposed to the reasonable doubt standard used in criminal cases or the preponderance of the evidence standard used in American tort litigation, although the latter is extremely similar in practice to the balance of ...
His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr. (Writ Petition (Civil) 135 of 1970), also known as the Kesavananda Bharati judgement, was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India that outlined the basic structure doctrine of the Indian Constitution. [2]
NEW YORK (Reuters) -The judge overseeing Donald Trump's criminal hush money case has put off ruling on whether the president-elect's conviction should be thrown out on immunity grounds, enabling ...
The Contempt of Courts Act 1971 categorises the offence of contempt into civil and criminal contempt. [12] The act specifies that high courts and the Supreme Court of India have the power to try and punish the offence of contempt, and high courts have the power to punish acts of contempt against courts subordinate to them; however, the Supreme Court of India has clarified that any court of ...