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

Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 – Section – 33, 27, 22, 54-It is not in dispute that no opportunity was granted to displaced person on 10.11.1982 and before passing of the order on 11.11.1982 – There was constructive res judicata, and there is no provision to move after 9 years for transfer of the kothi. It is significant that all previous orders which have relevance were suppressed – All previous orders which have relevance were suppressed – Appeal dismissed.

  (2008) 8 JT 295 : (2008) 10 SCALE 551 : (2008) 12 SCC 306 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA BEHARI KUNJ SAHKARI AVAS SAMITI — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P.…

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section – 4(1), 23(1) – Acquisition – Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) was published on October 24, 1961 acquiring a large extent of 1669 bighas 18 biswas of land for the planned development of Delhi – It is common knowledge that even in the same village, no two lands command same market value

  (1996) 7 AD 583 : (1996) 9 JT 307 : (1996) 7 SCALE 354 : (1996) 11 SCC 542 : (1996) 6 SCR 231 Supp SUPREME COURT OF INDIA…

Income Tax Act, 1963 – Section – 256(2) – Investment – Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in holding that the purchase and sales by the assessee of shares in the National Rayon Corporation Ltd. and the Kohinoor Mills Ltd. should be considered as regular dealings

(1998) 9 JT 275 : (1997) 11 SCC 557 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) BOMBAY — Appellant Vs. MAGANLAL CHHAGANLAL (P) LTD. — Respondent ( Before…