Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Sukhbiri Devi VS Union of India...
2023 2 Supreme 281 : The issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, but it may be treated as a question of law when the foundational facts determining the starting point of limitation are clearly and specifically pleaded in the plaint. In such cases, the question of limitation can be decided as a preliminary issue under Order XIV, Rule 2(2)(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, based on admitted facts. However, when facts are disputed, the question of limitation cannot be decided as a preliminary issue as it requires examination of disputed facts. Additionally, Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963, applies only to applications for execution of decrees (other than mandatory injunctions) and not to the initiation of legal proceedings to claim a right, thus it does not extend the limitation period to 12 years in cases where the suit is still in the initial stage.Checking relevance for CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE ASSOCIATION VS UNION OF INDIA...
2020 0 Supreme(SC) 350 : The legal documents establish that the doctrine of proportionality is a key principle in assessing whether limitations on constitutional rights—such as those under Articles 19(1)(g) and 30 of the Constitution of India—are constitutionally permissible. The doctrine requires that any restriction on a fundamental right must: (i) be for a proper purpose; (ii) be rationally connected to that purpose; (iii) be necessary (i.e., no less restrictive alternative exists); and (iv) maintain a proper balance between the importance of the state''''s objective and the burden on the individual right. This framework was applied to uphold the validity of NEET as a uniform entrance examination, finding that it serves the legitimate public interest in ensuring national standards, transparency, and merit-based admissions in medical and dental education. The Court concluded that prescribing NEET does not violate the rights of unaided or aided minority institutions under Articles 19(1)(g), 30, 25, 26, and 29(1), as the restriction is reasonable, proportionate, and in the interest of the general public. The documents thus directly address the ''''limitation mix question of law and facts'''' by demonstrating how legal principles (law) are applied to factual circumstances (NEET implementation) through the proportionality test, balancing individual rights against public interest.Checking relevance for Subramanian Swamy VS Union of India, Ministry of Law...
Checking relevance for Dharam Pal VS State of Haryana...
2016 1 Supreme 702 : The legal documents establish that constitutional courts (under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution) have the power to direct further investigation or transfer of investigation to another agency, such as the CBI, even after trial has commenced and some witnesses have been examined. This power is not barred by the stage of the case or the filing of a charge-sheet. The court may exercise this power in rare and exceptional circumstances where there is a lack of credibility in the investigation, such as when the investigating agency is negligent, biased, or when high-level officials are involved. The purpose is to ensure a fair, impartial, and truthful investigation to prevent miscarriage of justice and to instill public confidence. The power must be exercised sparingly and with great circumspection, but it is constitutionally permissible when the cause of the victim demands it and the ends of justice require it.Checking relevance for Alsia Pardhi VS State of M. P. ...
Checking relevance for Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni Moopil Nayar: Ravunniarath Unnimalu Amma Devaki Amma, Ravunniarath Rajan Menon: K. C. Gopalan Unni, Thathunni Nair, Mannarghat Moopil Nair VS State Of Madras: States Of Madras And Kerala: State Of Madras...
Checking relevance for Modern Dental College & Research Centre VS State of Madhya Pradesh...
2016 4 Supreme 321 : The legal documents establish that the right to establish and run an educational institution under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution is a fundamental right but is not absolute. It is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6), which must be balanced against the larger public interest. The doctrine of proportionality applies, requiring that any restriction must be (i) for a proper purpose, (ii) rationally connected to that purpose, (iii) necessary (no less restrictive alternative available), and (iv) proportionate in effect to the objective. The documents confirm that state regulation of admissions through a common entrance test (CET) and fee fixation in private unaided institutions is a reasonable restriction, as it ensures merit-based admissions, prevents malpractice and capitation fees, and protects public interest in quality education. These measures are upheld as valid under Article 19(1)(g) and do not violate the right to occupation, as they are proportionate and serve the larger societal interest in fairness, transparency, and access to quality higher education.Checking relevance for Biomoneta Research Pvt Ltd. VS Controller General of Patents Designs...
2023 0 Supreme(Del) 1173 : The legal document addresses the distinction between a mere combination of known features and a true inventive combination involving synergistic interaction. It clarifies that a patentable invention is not simply an ''''aggregation or juxtaposition of features'''' where each performs its function independently, but rather a ''''combination of features'''' where the functional interaction produces a new or improved result—specifically, a synergistic effect greater than the sum of individual effects. This principle is derived from EPO guidelines and reinforced by precedents such as British Celanese Ltd v. Courtaulds Ltd. and Albert Wood and Amcolite Ld. v. Gowshall Ld., which emphasize that the real question is whether the combination as a whole is obvious, not whether individual components are obvious. The court applied this test to find that the air decontamination assembly involved a synergistic working interrelation among specific electric fields, plate gaps, and multiple plates, resulting in improved efficiency, lower power consumption, compactness, and easier maintenance—thus constituting an inventive step under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970.
