Month: July 2021

HELD definition of “vicarious liability” it can be inferred that the person supervising the driver is liable to pay the compensation to the victim – During such time, however, it will be deemed that that vehicle was transferred along with the insurance policy, even if it were insured at the instance of the original owner

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UTTAR PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION — Appellant Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Abdul Nazeer…

Compounding Must Be Conferred Statute Which Creates Offence HELD First, that private parties should be allowed to settle a dispute between them at any stage (with or without the permission of the Court, depending on the offence), even of a criminal nature, if proper restitution has been made to the aggrieved party. Second, that, however, this should not extend to situations where the offence committed is of a public nature, even when it may have directly affected the aggrieved party.

Societal interest in the prosecution of crime which has a wider social dimension must be borne in mind “59….The first of these principles is crucial so as to allow for…

Tribunal Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021 – Sections 12 and 13 – Finance Act, 2017 – Sections 184 and 186 (2) – Appointment of Tribunal Members or Chairperson – Provisions requiring minimum age for appointment as Chairperson or Members as 50 years and prescribing the tenure of four years is Struck Down

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATION — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta and S. Ravindra…

Court at an earlier instance had taken note of all aspects and had arrived at the conclusion that there is prima facie material against the accused, the mere examination of the wife herein cannot be considered as a change in circumstance for the High Court to consider the fourth bail application of the accused and enlarge him on bail – Opinion that the order passed by High Court impugned herein is not sustainable – Bail cancelled

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MAMTA NAIR — Appellant Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI, A.S. Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.…

Service Matters

Service Law – Higher Pay Scale – Grant of benefits of higher pay scale to the Central/State Government employees stand on different footing than grant of pay scale by an instrumentality of the State – Employees of Punjab State Co-operative Milk Producers Federation are entitled to pay scale equivalent to their counterparts in State of Punjab

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PUNJAB STATE CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS FEDERATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. BALBIR KUMAR WALIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan…

HELD – Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act, 1908. – Principle is based on the fact that family settlement only declares the rights which are already possessed by the parties – A compromise decree in respect of land which is not the subject-matter of suit but is part of the settlement between the family members does not requires compulsory registration in terms of

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RIPUDAMAN SINGH — Appellant Vs. TIKKA MAHESHWAR CHAND — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hemant Gupta, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

Representatives of Facebook has to appear before the Delhi Assembly panel – Any representative of Facebook who would appear before the Committee would be well within their right to refuse to answer the query and such an approach cannot be taken amiss with possibility of inviting privilege proceedingsHELD The power to compel attendance by initiating privilege proceedings is an essential power

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH AJIT MOHAN AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul,…

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.