Month: February 2020

Associations That Are Formed Due To Mandate Of Law Cannot File A Consumer Complaint: HELD appellant association which consists of members of flat owners in a building, which has come into existence pursuant to a declaration which is required to be made compulsorily under the provisions of 1972 Karnataka Act, cannot be said to be a voluntary association

Associations That Are Formed Due To Mandate Of Law Cannot File A Consumer Complaint: SC [Read Judgment] LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK 14 Feb 2020 5:42 PM Explaining the term ‘voluntary consumer…

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 139 – Section 139 of the Act is an example of reverse onus clause and therefore once the issuance of the cheque has been admitted and even the signature on the cheque has been admitted, there is always a presumption in favour of the complainant that there exists legally enforceable debt or liability

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH APS FOREX SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. SHAKTI INTERNATIONAL FASHION LINKERS AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and M. R.…

ACQUITTAL – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 376(1) and 450 – Rape – Material contradictions – Benefit of doubt There is a delay in the FIR – The medical report does not support the case of the prosecution – FSL report also does not support the case of the prosecution – The manner in which the occurrence is stated to have occurred is not believable

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANTOSH PRASAD @ SANTOSH KUMAR — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and M.R. Shah, JJ. )…

Arbitration Act, 1940 – Arbitration proceedings – Contract agreement between Appellant and Respondent for construction of Sutlej Yamuna Link Canal (Punjab) HELD It is ordered that in addition to the Claim No.1 allowed by the High Court, the claimant is also entitled to the amount under Claim Nos.2, 3, 8 and 12

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CHANDIGARH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi and A.S. Bopanna, JJ.…

You missed

Temple Bye Laws — Oachira Parabrahma Temple — Ancient structure without a building or deity, governed by Bye-laws with three-tier elected committees — Appellants, elected Secretary and President, challenged two High Court orders (2020 and 2023) that removed their committee and appointed an unelected one under an Administrative Head, citing violations of the temple’s Bye-laws and customs —Legality of appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one contrary to the temple’s Bye-laws — Petitioner argues that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction and violated the temple’s governance structure by appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one without proper legal basis — The High Court’s actions were necessary for the efficient administration of the temple until a scheme could be framed and new elections held — The Supreme Court modified the High Court orders, appointing a new retired Judge as Administrative Head to conduct fair elections within four months, while directing all parties to cooperate — The Court emphasized the need to preserve temple properties and governance as per established customs and laws — The Supreme Court struck down the High Court’s order appointing an unelected committee, appointed a new Administrative Head to conduct elections, and directed all parties to cooperate, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the temple’s established governance structure and Bye-laws.