Month: August 2022

Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 – Section 45 – Grant of occupancy rights – Scope and purport of the two Acts being different, termination of the proceedings under the Karnataka (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 in regard to grant of occupancy rights cannot bar an enquiry to establish the claim under Section 45 of the Act, 1961 by the Land Tribuna

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH PILLAMMA (DEAD) AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M. RAMAIAH REDDY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and C.T.…

Murder – Life imprisonment – Appeal against reversing the order of acquittal – there are glaring contradictions between the testimony of even these two witnesses on the type of material object used and even on the role of A­2, the very foundation of the case of the prosecution stood shaken –

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH RAMABORA @ RAMABORAIAH AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. ) Criminal…

HELD one transaction of sale of software and once it is accepted that the software put in the CD is ‘goods’, then there cannot be any separate service element in the transaction. We are saying so because even otherwise the user is put in possession and full control of the software. It amounts to ‘deemed sale’ which would not attract service tax.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX DELHI — Appellant Vs. QUICK HEAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and J.B. Pardiwala, JJ.…

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.