Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia Vs Addl Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, AIR 1963 SC 786,

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed as under, " To answer the question raised it would be convenient at the outset to ascertain who are necessary or proper parties in a proceeding. The law on the subject is well settled: it is enough if we state the principle. A necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively; a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceeding.”

GOPAL DAS VERMA v. S.K.BHARADWAJ AIR 1963 SC 337

where premises are let for residential purposes and it is shown that they are used by the tenant incidentally for commercial, professional or other purposes with the consent of the landlord the landlord would not be entitled to eject the tenant even if he proves that he needs the premises bona fide for his personal use because the premises have by their user ceased to be premises let for residential purposes alone.
The requirement is that the tenant must have suitable residence. Both words of the requirement are significant; what he has acquired must be a residence and the premises from which ejectment is sought are used not only for residence but also for profession, how could S. 13(1)(h) come into operation? One of the purposes for which the tenancy is acquired is professional use, and that cannot be satisfied by the acquisition of premises which are suitable for residence alone, and it is the suitability for residence alone which is postulated by S. 13(1)(h). Therefore, in our opinion, it would be unreasonable to hold that tenancy which has been created or used both for residence and profession can be successfully terminated merely be showing that the tenant has acquired a suitable residence

Ukha Kohle v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 SC 1531

An order for retrial of a criminal case is made in exceptional cases, and not unless the appellate Court is satisfied that the Court trying the proceeding had no jurisdiction to try it or that the trial was vitiated by serious illegalities or irregularities or on account of misconception of the nature of the proceedings and on that account in substance there had been no real trial or that the prosecutor or an accused was for reasons over which he had no control, prevented from leading or tendering evidence material to the charge and in the interests of justice the appellate Court deems it appropriate, having regard to the circumstances of the case, that the accused should be put on his trial again.

Rent Chiranji Lal v. Kunwar Prasad and another AIR 1963 Allahabad 249 When a tenant refused to vacate the accommodation after his tenancy is terminated, he becomes trespasser and liable to pay the landlord mesne profits. These are to be assessed according to the reasonable market value of the premises. If the rent represents a fair value mesne profits may be assessed at the amount of the rent, but if the real value is higher than the rent, mesne profits must be assessed at a higher value. I cannot accept learned counsel's agreement that this value should be equal to the controlled rent and no more.

Adoption V.T.S. Chandrashekhara Mudalier v. Kulandeivelu Mudalier (AIR 1963 SC 185), substitution of a son for spiritual reason is the essence of adoption, and consequent devolution of property is mere accessory to it; the validity of an adoption has to be judged by spiritual rather than temporal considerations; and, devolution of property is only of secondary importance.