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

Abatement of appeal–An appeal would abate automatically unless the heirs and legal representatives of a deceased plaintiffs or defendants are brought on record within the period specified. Second appeal—Substantial question of law–When there is misconstruction of a document or wrong application of a principle of law in construing a document, it gives rise to a question of law.

2007(3) LAW HERALD (SC) 1936 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju Civil Appeal No. 2206 of 2007…

Accident–Only because Section 143 and 167 of the 1988 Act refer to the provisions of the 1923 Act, the same by itself would not mean that the provisions of the 1988 Act, proprio vigore would apply in regard to a proceeding for payment under the 1923 Act. Accident–Workman—The husband would not be a “workman” of his wife in absence of any specific contract.

  2007(3) LAW HERALD (SC) 1929 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju Civil Appeal No. 856 of…