Keeping Pace with Legal Change
In order to enforce the rule that a defendant must first establish a right against the plaintiff before any incidental claims against co-defendants can be entertained, the Court also cited Rajul Mano Shah v. Rajeshwari Rasiklal Sheth [(2025) 10 SCR 152].
The Supreme Court of India, in a more recent and important case, resolved a complicated legal matter in which it…
This article discusses one of the major judgments passed by the Supreme Court of India in 2025 based on a…
The article discusses an important decision of the Supreme Court of India that throws light on the most important procedural…
Through this article we discuss the opinion of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the Bhopal Nawab property succession case as it throws light on the complicated legal issues of the private property of former rulers. The case was remanded to the court to be tried once again, with stress on personal law, merger agreements and the clauses of the constitution especially in the case when a previous judgment on which the case had laid its relied-upon basis was being abridged by the Supreme Court.
Justice R. Mahadevan of the Supreme Court ruled Order VII Rule 11 CPC cannot dismiss a plaint outright and revived Vinod Infra’s land dispute suit
This abstract discusses interpleader suits under Section 88 and Order XXXV of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, with an emphasis on their applicability and related suit charges in Rajasthan under the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961 (Sections 44 and 45). An interpleader suit settles conflicts between defendants asserting the same property or debt from an impartial plaintiff, who wishes to escape liability. Section 44 regulates computation of fees on plaints, and Section 45 prescribes rates for suits not otherwise specified. The research identifies procedural subtleties and cost considerations in Rajasthan’s legal system.
