What business can be transacted under the head "any other item"

The decision in M.I. Builders (P) Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu [M.I. Builders (P) Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu, (1999) 6 SCC 464] , to the effect that an important issue cannot be decided under the residuary agenda item "any other item", will not also go to the rescue of the complainant companies, since the matter in M.I. Builders [M.I. Builders (P) Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu, (1999) 6 SCC 464] concerned the permission granted by the Municipal Corporation to a builder to construct an underground shopping complex in a park. The Court found the decision taken by the Mahapalika to be in clear breach of Sections 91 and 119 of the U.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1959.

Company does not suffer mental agony & temporary injunctions are regulated by CPC alone, not by Specific Relief Act

Best Sellers Retail (India) (P) Ltd. v. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd., (2012) 6 SCC 792

[Order 39, Rule 1/2]

Right to Form Association and State's Dictates

 As per Damyanti Naranga v. Union of India, (1971) 1 SCC 678 [5 Judges], the right to form association includes the right to its continuance and any law altering the composition of the association compulsorily will be breach of the right to form association guaranteed under the constitution.

Article 19(1)(c)

also in 2019 18 SCC 287 Maharashtra Archery Assn. v. Rahul Mehra, (2019) 18 SCC 287

Performance of an impossible act deserves to be excused

K.S. Muthu v. T. Govindarajulu, (2009) 17 SCC 353 

Gift Deed - when exigible to stamp duty

Kale v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, (1976) 3 SCC 119 at page 126.

10. In other words to put the binding effect and the essentials of a family settlement in a concretised form, the matter may be reduced into the form of the following propositions:

"(1) The family settlement must be a bona fide one so as to resolve family disputes and rival claims by a fair and equitable division or allotment of properties between the various members of the family.

(2) The said settlement must be voluntary and should not be induced by fraud, coercion or undue influence.

(3) The family arrangement may be even oral in which case no registration is necessary.

(4) It is well settled that registration would be necessary only if the terms of the family arrangement are reduced into writing. Here also, a distinction should be made between a document containing the terms and recitals of a family arrangement made under the document and a mere memorandum prepared after the family arrangement had already been made either for the purpose of the record or for information of the court for making necessary mutation. In such a case the memorandum itself does not create or extinguish any rights in immovable properties and therefore does not fall within the mischief of Section 17(2) of the Registration Act and is, therefore, not compulsorily registrable.

(5) The members who may be parties to the family arrangement must have some antecedent title, claim or interest even a possible claim in the property which is acknowledged by the parties to the settlement. Even if one of the parties to the settlement has no title but under the arrangement the other party relinquishes all its claims or titles in favour of such a person and acknowledges him to be the sole owner, then the antecedent title must be assumed, and the family arrangement will be upheld and the courts will find no difficulty in giving assent to the same.

(6) Even if bona fide disputes, present or possible, which may not involve legal claims are settled by a bona fide family arrangement which is fair and equitable the family arrangement is final and binding on the parties to the settlement."

Combining Arbitration - Multiparty

Acknowledgement in writing after limitation amounts to implied promise to pay and give fresh limitation period

Maharashtra Agro-Chemicals and Fertilizers v. Deoram Baburao Gavade, 1993 SCC OnLine Bom 482| (1993) 95 Bom LR 785  (Bombay High Court)

SBI v. Kanahiya Lal 2016 SCC OnLine Del 2639 : (2016) 157 DRJ 403  (Delhi High Court)