Month: January 2021

Service Matters

Voluntary Retirement – Bank employee – Where the appointing authority does not refuse to grant the permission for retirement before the expiry of the period specified in the notice, there shall be deemed acceptance of the voluntary retirement application and the retirement shall become effective from the date of expiry of the period mentioned in the notice.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH INDIAN BANK AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. MAHAVEER KHARIWAL — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and M.R. Shah, JJ. )…

Right to property is still a constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India though not a fundamental right – Deprivation of the right can only be in accordance with the procedure established by law – Provisions of the Act had to be complied with to deprive a person of the land being surplus

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH BAJRANGA (DEAD) BY LRS. — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Dinesh Maheshwari…

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.