Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Contract law, minority, mortgage Mohori Bibee v Dharmodas Ghose , [1903] UKPC 12, is a major Indian contract law case decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council . The case held that a contract entered into by a minor is totally void.
Indian Kanoon is an Indian law search engine. [ 1 ] [ 2 ] It was launched on 4 January 2008. The search engine has been meshed with the highest courts and tribunals of India to provide up-to-date judgements.
Supreme Court of India: Full case name: Deepika Singh versus Central Administrative Tribunal & Ors. Decided: 16 August 2022: Citations: C.A. No 5308/2022: Court membership; Judges sitting: D. Y. Chandrachud, J.; and A. S. Bopanna, J. Case opinions; Atypical families are deserving of equal protection under law and benefits available under social ...
Many of these cases are challenged under constitutional law and have led to constitutional amendments and challenges to the legality of such amendments. The frequency of decisions being overturned or invalidated reflect the ongoing efforts by lawmakers and the judiciary to strive towards equality.
Supriyo a.k.a Supriya Chakraborty & Abhay Dang v. Union of India thr. Its Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice & other connected cases (2023) are a collection of landmark cases of the Supreme Court of India, which were filed to consider whether to extend right to marry and establish a family to sexual and gender minority individuals in India. [4]
It was in this case that the then Chief Justice Koka Subba Rao had first invoked the doctrine of prospective overruling. He had taken import from American law where jurists like George F. Canfield, Robert Hill Freeman, John Henry Wigmore and Benjamin N. Cardozo had considered this doctrine to be an effective judicial tool.
Vishaka and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan was a 1997 Indian Supreme Court case where various women's groups led by Naina Kapur and her organisation, Sakshi filed Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against the state of Rajasthan and the central Government of India to enforce the fundamental rights of working women under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
By adding Articles 15(6) and 16(6) to the Indian Constitution, the state acquired the authority to impose specific restrictions on reservations for economically weaker sections, with a maximum of 10%. The Superem court compiled all the writ under the case Janhit Abhiyan Vs Union of India.