Calcutta HC: Award May Be Set Aside if Tribunal Rewrites Contract or Ignores Key Clauses  ||  Delhi HC Suspends Kuldeep Singh Sengar’s Life Term, Holding Section 5(C) of POCSO Not Made Out  ||  Calcutta High Court: Arbitration Clause in an Expired Lease Cannot be Invoked For a Fresh Lease  ||  Delhi High Court: 120-Day Timeline under Section 132B Of Income Tax Act is Not Mandatory  ||  NCLAT Reaffirms That Borrower's Debt Acknowledgment Also Extends Limitation Period for Guarantors  ||  NCLAT: Oppression & Mismanagement Petition Cannot Be Filed Without Company Membership on Filing Date  ||  Supreme Court Quashes Rajasthan Village Renaming, Says Government Must Follow its Own Policy  ||  NCLAT: NCLT Can Order Forensic Audit on its Own, No Separate Application Required  ||  NCLAT Reiterates That IBC Cannot be Invoked as a Recovery Tool for Contractual Disputes  ||  Delhi HC: DRI or Central Revenues Control Lab Presence in Delhi Alone Does Not Confer Jurisdiction    

Supreme Court: Rulers of Princely States were ''Maharajas Without Praja'' - (01 Aug 2019)

PROPERTY

Supreme Court observed that rulers of princely states were ''Maharajas'' (kings) without ''praja'' (subjects). It was also noted that sovereignty and territory after the merger of States with the Indian Union, and their personal properties could not be treated as attached to the ''gaddi'' or rulership.

Tags : SUPREME COURT   PRINCELY STATES  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved