When the same dispute is subject matter before the Supreme Court, the High Court cannot entertain writ petition in respect of the same

Union of India v. Jaiswal Coal Co. Ltd., (1999) 5 SCC 733 

Intervention

Ram Nandan Singh v. AG Office Employees Coop. House Construction Society Ltd., (2007) 14 SCC 102 at page 107

12. In Ravi Rao Gaikwad case [(2006) 5 SCC 62] , this Court observed that the purpose of grant of application for intervention is to entitle the interveners to address arguments in support of one or the other side.

 

Solicitor can be restrained from using information gained from one client for being used against him

Rakusen v Ellis, Munday & Clarke,  [1912] 1 Ch. 831 (Court of Appeal)

 

 

Necessity of framing Points of Determination in First Appeal as per Order 41 Rule 31

A.M. Sangappa @ Sangappa v. Sangodeppa, 2013 (14) SCALE 384

See also (2010) 13 SCC 530

Sent from BlackBerry® on Airtel

Adjudication to be confined to the objectors alone

(1993) 4 SCC 255

 

Supreme Court held that High Court erred in quashing the whole Section 6 notification rather than confining such quashing to only the objectors who had approached the court. Matter remanded back to the High Court for individualised justice.

Law as on the date of application to be applicable

Rules which are prevalent as on the date when the application is considered are to be applied and not the date when the application is made. Somdev Kapoor v. State of West Bengal & Ors, 2013 (12) SCALE 434

Leave to appeal is a must from AFT

While filing any appeal to Supreme Court from AFT order, either the applicant has to take leave from AFT itself or must make an application for grant of leave to appeal. 2013 (5) SCALE 258  Naib Subedar Naresh Chand v. Union of India