Latest Post

Housing Finance — Loan Disbursement — Due Diligence — The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission emphasized that while a housing finance company (HFC) has a duty to exercise due diligence, borrowers also have a responsibility to exercise reasonable care and circumspection when availing home loans, especially in builder-linked projects with potential delays or issues — The Commission found that the borrowers had already booked their flats and made initial payments before approaching the HFC for loans, negating claims of reliance on alleged assurances from the HFC — The HFC disbursed loans based on the borrowers’ proposals and submitted records, and could not be held liable for the developer’s subsequent defaults. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Appeal allowed — State Commission wrongly entertained complaint when jurisdiction was excluded by agreement and granted claim to insurance company which was not a consumer. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 12, 21(b) — Medical Negligence — Injury to Common Bile Duct (CBD) during gall bladder surgery — Liability of doctors — Lower forums found Opposite Parties 1 & 2 liable for medical negligence and deficiency in service — National Commission upheld these findings — Revision petitions by Opposite Parties 1 & 2 dismissed — Revision petition by complainants allowed for enhancement of compensation — Opposite Parties 1 & 2 jointly and severally liable to pay enhanced compensation and confirmed medical expenses and litigation costs — Appeals dismissed in part and allowed in part. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Reliefs granted — Developer entitled to forfeit 10% of the Basic Sale Price (BSP) — Balance amount paid by the complainant to be refunded with interest at 6% per annum — Upon failure to refund within stipulated time, interest rate to increase to 9% per annum — Liability of Opposite Parties to be joint and several. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revisional jurisdiction of National Commission — Limited — Interference justified only if lower fora exercised jurisdiction not vested, failed to exercise vested jurisdiction, or acted illegally or with material irregularity — Not for re-appreciation of evidence — Petitioners failed to demonstrate jurisdictional error or material irregularity in appreciation of evidence by lower fora — Petition dismissed —

Non-Supply of fuel to vehicles without PUC Certificate – Appeal against – Tribunal had no power and/or authority and/or jurisdiction to pass orders directing the Appellant State Government to issue orders, instructions or directions on dealers, outlets and petrol pumps not to supply fuel to vehicles without PUC Certificate – Appeal allowed.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Appellant Vs. CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Arun Mishra…

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 7 – A personal Loan to a Promoter or a Director of a company cannot trigger the Corporate Resolution Process under the IBC. Disputes as to whether the signatures of the Respondents are forged or whether records have been fabricated can be adjudicated upon evidence including forensic evidence in a regular suit and not in proceedings under Section 7 of the IBC.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S RADHA EXPORTS (INDIA) PVT. LIMITED. — Appellant Vs. K.P. JAYARAM AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Arun Mishra and Indira Banerjee,…

Decree of possession – A decree of possession does not automatically follow a decree of declaration of title and ownership over property – It is well settled that, where a Plaintiff wants to establish that the Defendant’s original possession was permissive, it is for the Plaintiff to prove this allegation and if he fails to do so, it may be presumed that possession was adverse, unless there is evidence to the contrary.

 “A decree of possession does not automatically follow a decree of declaration of title and ownership over property. “   SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NAZIR MOHAMED — Appellant…

Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006 – Section 4(5) – Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 14, 15, 16, 338, 341, 342, and 342A – Permissibility of Sub-Classification within Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes Reservation – State Government has the power to make reservation and make such sub – classification and that would not amount to tinkering with lists. Matter referred to larger bench.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CONSTITUTION BENCH THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. DAVINDER SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet…

Pleas Of Title And Adverse Possession Cannot Be Advanced Simultaneously HELD  The possession has to be in public and to the knowledge of the true owner as adverse, and this is necessary as a plea of adverse possession seeks to defeat the rights of the true owner.And From The Same Date HELD

The Supreme Court has observed that plea of title and adverse possession cannot be advanced simultaneously and from the same date.  “We fail to appreciate how, on the one hand…

Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 – Sections 3(2) and 9A – Imposition of quantitative restrictions – Central Government has no right and power to impose ‘quantitative restrictions’ except under Section 9A of the FTDR Act – Section 9A of the FTDR Act does not elide or negate the power of the Central Government to impose restrictions on imports under sub-section (2) to Section 3 of the FTDR Act.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. AGRICAS LLP AND OTHERS ETC. — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and…

(IPC) – Ss 147, 323, 325 read with 149 – Voluntarily Causing hurt – Reduction in sentence – Sudden incident for plucking the Jamun (fruit) and there was no intention to cause the injuries – Conviction confirmed – Sentence imposed Trial Court and High Court modified and reduced to the period already undergone

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KARTHICK AND OTHERS — Appellant HASH THE STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANCHEEPURAM DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU — Respondent ( Before : R.…

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 45 – Capital gain – Assessment year 1975-1976 – Capital gains arising out of land acquisition compensation were chargeable to income-tax under Section 45 of the Act of 1961 for the previous year referable to the date of award of compensation i.e., 29.09.1970 and not the date of notification for acquisition.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH RAJ PAL SINGH — Appellant Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, HARYANA, ROHTAK — Respondent ( Before : A.M.Khanwilkar, Hemant Gupta and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ.…

You missed