Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Sections 47, 49(2) and 59 – Court observed that the appellant was not an illiterate person and had signed the agreement after being aware of the adjustable interest rate option – The Court also noted that the appellant had not produced any evidence to show that he had a better option of securing loan from another institution – The Court held that the email could not override the policy decisions of HDFC and that the appellant could not seek refund of the interest paid after having received the loan amount and repaid it as per the agreement.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJESH MONGA — Appellant Vs. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.S. Bopanna and M.M. Sundresh, JJ. )…
Bribery: Not protected by parliamentary privilege, as it is not in respect of anything said or any vote given by a member, and it is a criminal offence that does not arise out of the exercise of legislative functions Courts and House: Exercise parallel jurisdiction over allegations of bribery, as the House can take disciplinary action to restore its dignity, while the courts can prosecute the offenders under the criminal law The majority judgment in PV Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE) did not consider the evolution of law in the US and relied solely on the dissenting opinion in United States v. Brewster to conclude that members of Parliament in India are immune from prosecution for bribery under Article 105(2) of the Constitution
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 7 JUDGE BENCH SITA SOREN — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI, A.S. Bopanna, M.M. Sundresh, Pamidighantam…
Suit for Partition – The supreme court reversed the high court’s decision regarding two properties, and upheld the sale of one property by defendant no. 7 to defendant no. 9 – The Supreme court relied on the 1984 partition deed and the evidence on record.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SRINIVAS RAGHAVENDRARAO DESAI (DEAD) BY LRS. — Appellant Vs. V. KUMAR VAMANRAO @ ALOK AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and…
“Upbringing vs. Biology: Supreme Court Prioritizes Stability Over Paternal Claim in Custody Battle” The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the aunt and set aside the order of the High Court, which had directed the custody of the child to be handed over to the father – The Supreme Court relied on the principles of child welfare, stability, and preference, and found that the child was happy, intelligent, and categorical in her wish to live with the aunt
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHAZIA AMAN KHAN AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal,…
Will was not surrounded by suspicious circumstances, as the testator was in good health and senses, the scribe and one of the witnesses were consistent, the testator had left sufficient property for his widow and daughter, and the respondent had taken care of the testator and his property – It also held that the high court was justified in interfering with the first appellate court’s findings, as they were perverse and contrary to the evidence on record
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THANGAM AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. NAVAMANI AMMAL — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 8935…
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 197, 200 and 202 – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 323, 294, 427, 341, 447, 506B read with Section 34 and Sections 107, 141 of the – Illegally capturing of land and breaking of fencing – Criminal appeal filed by the appellants, who are officers of the Special Armed Forces (SAF), – held that the appellants acted in the performance of their statutory duties as officers of the SAF, and therefore, sanction was required to prosecute them – The court also found that the complaint lacked material particulars and evidence to support the allegations.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MURARI LAL CHHARI AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. MUNISHWAR SINGH TOMAR AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan,…
Suit for specific performance – Suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale executed by the respondent in their favour in respect of a plot of land in Chandigarh – The Supreme Court held that the appellants were disentitled to the relief of specific performance due to their conduct of making false and/or incorrect statements in the plaint – The Supreme Court also held that the appellants did not give up their claim against the co-sharers of the respondent who were not parties to the suit.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MAJOR GEN. DARSHAN SINGH (D) BY LRS. AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. BRIJ BHUSHAN CHAUDHARY (D) BY LRS. — Respondent ( Before : Abhay…
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(c) – Seizure of ganja from four accused under the NDPS Act – The Court pointed out the glaring loopholes and fatal flaws in the prosecution case, such as the doubtful weighment of the contraband, the flawed sampling procedure, the missing link evidence, the inadmissible confession, and the illegal conviction of the appellants who were not present at the spot.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MOHAMMED KHALID AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Criminal…
Consumer Law – they neither have the skills nor the expertise to do so. However, they are liable to pay the monetary compensation as directed by the consumer forums from the estate of the deceased developer – The court applied the principles of contract law, consumer protection law, and succession law to arrive at its decision – It distinguished between proprietary rights and personal rights, and between inheritable rights and uninheritable rights – It also discussed the nature and status of a proprietary concern and its legal representatives.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VINAYAK PURSHOTTAM DUBE (DECEASED), THROUGH LRS — Appellant Vs. JAYASHREE PADAMKAR BHAT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan,…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 306 – Abetment of Suicide – The Supreme Court reiterated that to constitute abetment, there must be a positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide – The Supreme Court also stated that mere allegation of harassment without any direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of suicide would not amount to abetment
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KUMAR @ SHIVA KUMAR — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. ) Criminal…