Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Legal Services Authority Act, 1987

6 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

MADDURI GANGARAJU @ BABU RAOversusMADDURI SUNANDA & OTHERS

2025 INSC 99130 July 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The marriage between Madduri Venkateswara Rao and Madduri Sunanda was dissolved by a California divorce decree in 2007. After returning to India, Sunanda filed a matrimonial suit, a domestic violence case, and an FIR under sections 494 and 498A IPC against her husband and his relatives. The parties later resolved all d

RUTU MIHIR PANCHAL & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2025 INSC 59329 April 2025Disposed off

The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of sections 34(1), 47(1)(a)(i) and 58(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which base the pecuniary jurisdiction of district, state and national consumer commissions on the value of consideration paid rather than the compensation claimed. The challenge arose fr

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIAversusC. L. VIMLA & ORS.

2015 INSC 36328 April 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The Central Bank of India had mortgaged a residential property to recover a loan taken by the borrowers and obtained a settlement award from a Lok Adalat, which was signed by the borrowers and one of the guarantor's sons but not by the guarantor herself, C.L. Vimla. Vimla filed multiple writ petitions challenging the a

SALEM ADVOCATE BAR ASSOCIATION, TAMIL NADUversusUNION OF INDIA

2002 INSC 44425 October 2002Directions issued

The Salem Advocate Bar Association filed writ petitions under Article 32 challenging the 1999 and 2002 amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. While the Constitutionality of the amendments was not contested, the petitioner sought clarification on their practical implementation. The Court interpreted the amende

MADHYA PRADESH STATE LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITYversusPRATEEK JAIN & ANR.

2014 INSC 62110 September 2014Disposed off

The dispute arose under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act between Prateek Jain (complainant) and Rakesh Kumar Jain (accused). While a criminal appeal was pending, the parties settled and filed a joint application under Section 147 seeking compounding and requested that the matter be taken before a Lok Adala

SALEM ADVOCATE BAR ASSOCIATION, TAMIL NADUversusUNION OF INDIA

2005 INSC 3242 August 2005Case Partly allowed

The Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity and practical effect of numerous amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) made by the 1999 and 2002 Amendment Acts. It held that the requirement of filing an affidavit under Section 26(2) and Order VI Rule 15(4) imposes additional responsibility on deponents

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search