Partner continues to be liable after resignation unless he gives publ

Partner continues to be liable after resignation unless he gives public notice

Union Bank of India v. Six Star Hosieries, 2001 SCC OnLine Mad 1000 

2023 SCC OnLine SC 1275 | Burden of Proof - In Section 138 Cases

Judgments cannot be read like a statute

Power of Revision Court in Section 397 CrPC

Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 687 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 986 : 2012 SCC OnLine SC 724 at page 475

12. Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinise the orders, which upon the face of it bears a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law. If one looks into the various judgments of this Court, it emerges that the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are not exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own merits. (Emphasis Supplied)

Probate court does not decide title or existence of the property itself

Ishwardeo Narain Singh v. Smt Kamta Devi AIR 1954 SC 280 

A court of probate is only concerned with the question as to whether the document put forward as the last will and testament of a deceased person was duly executed and attested in accordance with law and whether at the time of such execution the testator had sound disposing mind. The question whether a particular bequest is good or bad is not within the purview of the probate court. Therefore the only issue in a probate proceedings relates to the genuineness and due execution of the will and the court itself is under duty to determine it and preserve the original will in its custody. The Succession Act is a self-contained code insofar as the question of making an application for probate, grant or refusal of probate or an appeal carried against the decision of the probate court. This is clearly manifested in the fascicule of the provisions of the Act. The probate proceedings shall be conducted by the probate court in the manner prescribed in the Act and in no other ways. The grant of probate with a copy of the will annexed establishes conclusively as to the appointment of the executor and the valid execution of the will. Thus it does no more than establish the factum of the will and the legal character of the executor. Probate court does not decide any question of title or of the existence of the property itself. 

An error of jurisdiction nullifies every act/decision

A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, (1988) 2 SCC 602 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 372 at page 649

36. In Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan [(1955) 1 SCR 117 at 121 : AIR 1954 SC 340] Venkatarama Ayyar, J. observed that the fundamental principle is well established that a decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity, and that its validity could be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon — even at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceedings. A defect of jurisdiction whether it is pecuniary or territorial, or whether it is in respect of the subject-matter of the action, strikes at the very authority of the court to pass any decree, and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of parties.

bail applications from same FIR before same court

Abhyanand Sharma v. State of Bihar, (2022) 10 SCC 819