Month: October 2019

Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 – Section 16 – Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 – Rule 34 – Transfer of land – Lack of use of expression ‘package deal’ – Thus, if the Central Government could transfer land forming part of the compensation pool to a corporation, then it could very well transfer land to a State Government.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAMESH PARSRAM MALANI AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta…

West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 – Section 7(2) and 7(3) – Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 – Section 17(2), 17(2A), 17(2B) – Extension of time to deposit of arrears of rent – Sub sections (2A) and (2B) of Section 17 of 1956 Act confer unfettered power on the court to extend the period of deposit of rent, which is circumscribed by the proviso of sub sections (2) and (3) of Section 7 of the Act.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BIJAY KUMAR SINGH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. AMIT KUMAR CHAMARIYA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta…

Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 – Sections 139, 140 and 169 – Water Charges Rules – Applicability of – High Court misread the impugned demand notices as being under Section 169 of the Act, when in fact the same were for recovery of property tax in the form of water benefit tax under Section 139 read with Sections 140 and 141 of the Act.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI — Appellant Vs. HARISH LAMBA OF BOMBAY, INDIAN INHABITANT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and…

You missed

“Husband Has No Right On Wife’s Stridhan” Matrimonial Law – The appeal concerns a matrimonial dispute involving misappropriation of gold jewellery and monetary gifts – The appellant, a widow, married the first respondent, a divorcee, and alleged misappropriation of her jewelry and money by the respondents – The core issue is whether the appellant established the misappropriation of her gold jewellery by the respondents and if the High Court erred in its judgment – The appellant claimed that her jewellery was taken under the pretext of safekeeping on her wedding night and misappropriated by the respondents to settle their financial liabilities – The respondents denied the allegations, stating no dowry was demanded and that the appellant had custody of her jewellery, which she took to her paternal home six days after the marriage – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, upheld the Family Court’s decree, and awarded the appellant Rs. 25,00,000 as compensation for her misappropriated stridhan – The Court found the High Court’s approach legally unsustainable, criticizing it for demanding a criminal standard of proof and basing findings on assumptions not supported by evidence – The Court emphasized the civil standard of proof as the balance of probabilities and noted that the appellant’s claim for return of stridhan does not require proof of acquisition – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant had established a more probable case and directed the first respondent to pay the compensation within six months, with a 6% interest per annum in case of default.