Must Read

Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC477

By
Image
Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC 477||Case Summary  Introduction  In this appeal, the Court has interpreted Article 15(4) of the Fundamental Right. It has been added by the 1st Amendment Act, of 1951. Facts The State of Haryana instructed Maharshi Dayanand University (MDU), Rohtak to conduct entrance examination for MD/MS/PG courses for the Session 2008-2009. The appellant made a representation to the Health Secretary for providing reservation for SC and ST in the Post Graduate courses, Since there was no response from the Health Secretary the Appellant filed a petition in the High Court.  The High Court dismissed the petition of the appellant therefore the appellant approached the Supreme Court by Special Leave Petition under Article 136. Appellant Contentions  MDU, Rohtak has provided 20% reservation for the graduate level courses or undergraduate courses therefore the said University should also provide reservation in for the PG courses.  The Government o
Post a Comment

Publish Your Article

By
Niyamskanoon is an open platform dedicated to sharing legal knowledge and fostering a vibrant community of law students, professionals, and legal enthusiasts. We invite you to contribute your case interpretations, legal articles, and other insights to help educate and inspire the next generation of legal minds.

Why Contribute to Niyamskanoon.com?

  1. Reach a Wide Audience:- Your work will be accessible to a diverse audience across India, making it a valuable resource for students and legal professionals.
  2. Build Your Professional Portfolio:- Publishing your work on our platform enhances your academic and professional profile, helping you stand out in the legal community.
  3. Contribute to Legal Education:- Your case summaries, interpretations, and articles will serve as crucial resources for juniors and peers, aiding them in their studies and legal practice.
  4. Get Recognized:- Every piece you contribute is credited to you, allowing you to gain recognition for your expertise and efforts.

What Can You Submit?

We welcome submissions in various formats, including:

  1. Case Summaries & Interpretation:- Simplify complex judgments, explore different angles, and provide clear, concise summaries of important cases.
  2. Legal Articles:- Share your thoughts on recent legal developments, write in-depth analyses on specific areas of law, or offer commentary on legal principles and their application.
  3. Opinion Pieces:- Provide your unique take on contemporary legal issues or debates that matter to the legal community.
  4. Research Papers

Your submissions can be in English only, reflecting your unique perspective on various legal issues.

How to Submit Your Work?

  1. Prepare Your Submission:- Ensure your work is original and well-researched.
  2. Format Requirements:- Submit in Word or PDF format, including your name, contact details, and a brief bio.
  3. Send It Over:- Email your submission to [niyamkanoon09@gmail.com] with the subject line “Submission for Niyamskanoon.com.”
  4. Review Process:- Our editorial team will review your work and get back to you within a week.

Copyright Rights and Guidelines

  1. Copyright Ownership:- Contributors retain copyright to their work. By submitting, you grant Niyamskanoon.com a non-exclusive, perpetual, royalty-free license to publish and promote your content.
  2. Originality and Plagiarism:- All submissions must be original. Contributors are responsible for ensuring no infringement on third-party rights.
  3. Attribution:- Your work will be credited to you, with your name and bio displayed alongside the published content.
  4. Editing Rights:- We reserve the right to make minor edits for clarity and formatting. Significant changes will be communicated to you for approval.
  5. Republishing and Distribution:- Authors may republish their work elsewhere with proper acknowledgment of its first publication on Niyamskanoon.com.
  6. Use of Submitted Content:- Excerpts of your work may be used for promotional purposes with appropriate credit.
  7. Withdrawal of Submission:- You may request removal of your work from our platform at any time, though derivative works or prior promotional content may still be used.
  8. Dispute Resolution:- Any disputes regarding copyright or usage will be addressed through good-faith discussions between the author and Niyamskanoon.com.

Join Our Community

We believe in the power of shared knowledge. By contributing to Niyamskanoon.com, you’re not just sharing information—you’re helping to shape the future of legal education. We look forward to your valuable contributions.

For any questions or more information, feel free to contact us at niyamkanoon09@gmail.com 

Framework for Case Interpretation

When submitting a case interpretation to Niyamskanoon.com, please follow the structure outlined below to ensure consistency and clarity. This will help readers quickly understand the key aspects of the case and your analysis.

  1. Case Title and Citation
    • Title: The full name of the case.
    • Citation: Proper legal citation of the case (e.g., AIR 2023 SC 456).
  2. Court and Bench
    • Court: The name of the court that decided the case (e.g., Supreme Court of India, Delhi High Court).
    • Bench: Names of the judges who presided over the case.
  3. Date of Judgment
    • The date on which the judgment was delivered.
  4. Facts of the Case
    • A concise summary of the relevant facts that led to the legal dispute. Focus on the key points that are necessary to understand the issues at hand.
  5. Issues Raised
    • List the legal issues or questions that the court had to decide. These should be framed as questions or statements.
  6. Arguments Presented
    • By the Petitioner: Summarize the main arguments made by the petitioner or appellant.
    • By the Respondent: Summarize the main arguments made by the respondent.
  7. Judgment
    • Provide a brief summary of the court’s decision, including any legal principles or precedents relied upon.
  8. Ratio Decidendi
    • Discuss the legal reasoning behind the court’s decision. Explain the principles and rationale the court used to arrive at its judgment.
  9. Obiter Dicta (if any)
    • Include any additional observations or comments made by the court that were not essential to the decision but provide useful insight.
  10. Analysis
    • Offer your critical analysis of the case. This section can include:
    • The implications of the judgment.
    • How the decision fits into the broader legal landscape.
    • Your opinion on whether the judgment was rightly decided or if there were alternative interpretations.
    • Potential impacts on future cases.
  11. Conclusion
    • Summarize the key takeaways from the case and your interpretation. 
    • Highlight the importance of the case in legal studies or practice.
  12. References (if applicable)


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Post

Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Co. Ltd. v. Riche (1875)

By
Image
Ashbury railway carriage v riche|| Case Summary  Introduction   This case is related to the " Doctrine of Ultra Vires". In this case, the directors of the appellant company made an agreement with the plaintiff which was beyond the objectives, as mentioned in its MoA, of the appellant Company. Since the agreement was beyond its objectives, the appellant company repudiated the agreement later. Therefore the suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover the damages. Facts   The directors of the appellant company (Ashbury Railway Carriage) had contracted to obtain a concession from Gillon and Poeters Baerston, who obtained this right from the Belgian Government, to make a railway.  For this purpose, the directors of the appellant company again entered into a contract with Riche, a contractor, the purpose of which was to establish a société anonyme,  and as the plaintiff went on with the work, the appellant company had to pay into the hands of société anonyme,  Earlier the sharehol
Read more

Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353

By
Image
Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353 Case Summary Introduction The case of Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate involved a dispute between the management of the Dimakuchi Tea Estate and its workers. This case has discussed and cleared the meaning of the expression "any person" used in S.2(K) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of a limited interpretation of the term "any person" thereby excluding the present appellant from the ambit of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947. This decision denied the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute and extended the benefits and protections of the Act to the employers. Facts of the Case The dispute was raised over the termination of the service of Dr K.P. Banerjee, who was appointed as an Assistant Medical Officer in the Respondent's estate (Dimakuchi Tea Estate), on the grounds of being incompetent. Although th
Read more