Latest Post

Limitation in consumer protection cases should be interpreted holistically, considering the continuing cause of action and prioritizing substantive rights over strict procedural time bars. A suit in representative capacity (Order 1, Rule 8 CPC) is not maintainable if lacking locus standi, and a prior decree (res judicata) bars subsequent suits on the same subject matter, notwithstanding varying reliefs. Agreement to sell immovable property incurs stamp duty as deemed conveyance via implied/symbolic possession transfer, with duty applying to the agreement (instrument), not the sale (transaction). The Supreme Court emphasized that the goal is to ensure just and fair compensation, even if it exceeds the claimed amount. It recalculated the compensation, considering the claimant’s monthly income, future prospects, 40% permanent disability, medical expenses, attendant charges, special diet and transportation, pain and suffering, and loss of income during treatment. The final compensation was determined to be Rs. 17,82,825, modifying the awards of the MACT and High Court. The Civil Appeal was allowed, with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. This decision underscores the principle of providing fair compensation to accident victims based on comprehensive assessment of their losses and suffering. In child custody cases, the lawpoint is that the welfare of the minor child is the paramount consideration, and a Habeas Corpus writ petition is maintainable only when the child’s detention is proven illegal or without legal authority
Service Matters

Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965 – Rule 4 – Constitution of India, 1950 – Article – 14, 16 – Benefit of military service – Appeal arises out of a writ petition filed by Respondents 1 and 3 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana wherein they assailed the seniority of the appellant in the Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch)

  (1998) 9 JT 345 : (1997) 11 SCC 247 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA JAI PAL SINGH SANGWAN — Appellant Vs. D.V. BHATIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before :…

Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 – Section – 85(8) – Delay in filling the application under section 85(8) – Appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Kerala affirming the order of the Taluk Land Board dismissing the application of the appellants filed under Section 85(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act as barred by time

(1998) 9 JT 499 : (1997) 11 SCC 256 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ALIPARAMBA MOHAMMED AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. TALUK LAND BOARD AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before :…