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


Jump to:navigation, search

A Right is a power, privilege, faculty, or demand, inherent in one person and incident upon another.

"Rights" are defined generally as "powers of free action."

Related Cases / Recent Cases / Case Laws

  • Walsh v Lonsdale, (1882) 21 Ch D 9 (14): The tenant holds under an agreement for a lease. He holds, therefore, under the same terms in equity as if a leaser had been granted, it being given by specific performance. That being so he cannot complain of the exercise by the landlord of the same rights as the landlord would have had if a lease had been granted, eg, the right of distress, merely because the parchment has not being signed and sealed.
  • Kanhaya Lal v National Bank of India, (1930) 40 CLJ 1 (PC): The right of repayment of money paid under mistake or coercion is a statutory right in India under Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act, and the right cannot be defeated by any equitable defense.
  • Ram Singh v Ramchand, (1923) 40 CLJ 276 (PC): Though in India, the same courts administer both law and equity, and there is no distinction between legal and equitable rights as such, yet the origin of the various rights and remedies as in England is not overlooked and equitable defenses are of no avail to statutory rights.
  • P Suseela and Others Etc Etc v University Grants Commission and Others Etc Etc, Civil Appeal Jurisdiction, Civil Appeal No OF 2015, Supreme Court of India judgement dated March 16, 2015 dealt with existing right and vested right.
  • State of Gujarat and Others Vs Arvindkumar T Tiwari and Another, Civil Appeal No: 6468 of 2012; Supreme Court Judgement dated September 14, 2012: When application for appointment is sought for claim under compassionate grounds, the appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
  • Rogers vs Rajendro Dutt (1860) 8 MIA 108: An act (commission or omission) complained should be legally wrongful. It must prejudicial affect him in some legal right.
  • Mills v Colchester Corporation (1867) LR 2 CP 476; Alfred F Beckett Ltd v Lyons [1967] Ch 449, [1967] 1 All ER 833: Where the right to fish depended upon the grant of a license by the owners of an oyster fishery, it was held that there was no custom since enjoyment had never been as of right.

Related Maxims

Related Topics