Join our Law Notes WhatsApp Group and stay updated with Legal and Judicial Updates


Jump to:navigation, search

A Court is a seat where disputes are argued before a duly appointed judicial authority such as a Judge. The Judge, after hearing the arguments, gives his orders / opinions / directions in the form of a Judgement.

  • Courts try cases depending on its Jurisdiction.
  • Courts have to often balance competing interests called the Traditional Balance and the Modern Balance.
  • Courts try to impose the socially approved values embedded in the laws of the land. Thus, they act as the instruments of social control.

Related Acts

Related Cases / Recent Cases / Case Law

  • Jang Sing v Brij Lal, AIR 1966 SC 1631: Party not to suffer a wrong occasioned by the inaction or fault on the part of the Court. It is settled law that no person should suffer for inaction or fault on the part of the court.
  • Pugh v Heath, (1882) 7 App Cas 235 (237): The net effect of Judicature Acts is "not to create two courts - a court of law and equity"
  • Walsh v Lonsdale, (1882) 21 Ch D 9 (14): In regard to Judicature Acts, it is now one Court which is a court of complete jurisdiction, legal and equitable, and in case of any possible conflict, the rules of equity will prevail in it.
  • Salt v Cooper (1880) 16 Ch D 544: "The main object of the Judicature Act, 1873, was to assimilate the transaction of equity business and common law business by different courts of judicature. It has been sometimes inaccurately called 'the fusion of law and equity'; but it was not any fusion or anything of the kind; it was the vesting in one tribunal the administration of law and equity in every case, action, or dispute which should come before the tribunal. That was the meaning of the Act. Then as to that very small number of cases in which there is an actual conflict, it was decided that the rules of equity should prevail. That was to be the mode of administering the combined jurisdiction."
  • Ind Cooper and Co v Emmerson (1887) 12 AC 300: "The main object of the Judicature Act was to enable the parties to a suit to obtain in that suit, and without the necessity to another court, all remedies to which they were entitled, so as to avoid multiplicity of action.
  • Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association v Union of India and Another, (1989) 4 SCC 187, this Court held that Court cannot direct the legislature to enact a particular law for the reason that under the constitutional scheme the Parliament exercises sovereign power to enact law and no outside power or authority can issue a particular piece of legislation.
  • District Mining Officer and Others v Tata Iron and Steel Co and Another, (2001) 7 SCC 358, Supreme Court of India held that function of the Court is only to expound the law and not to legislate.
  • Subhash v State of Maharashtra and Another, AIR 2002 SC 2537 emphasized that Court should not be misguided and should not lightly entertain review application unless there are circumstances falling within the prescribed limits that Courts and Tribunals should not proceed to re - examine the matter as if it was an original appeal before it, for reason that it cannot be scope of a review
  • Rajendra Kumar v Rambhal [AIR 2003 SC 2095] dealt with the limitations on exercise of the power of review are well settled. The first and foremost requirement of entertaining a review petition is that the order, review of which is sought, suffers from any error apparent on the face of the record and permitting the order to stand will lead to failure of justice. In the absence of any such error, finality attached to the judgment/order cannot be disturbed
  • M/s. Jain Studios Ltd. v Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd. [AIR 2006 SC 2686]: The power of review cannot be confused with appellate power which enables a superior court to correct all errors committed by a subordinate Court.

Related Topics