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

Circumstantial Evidence–Last Seen Together–There can be no fixed or straight jacket formula for the duration of time gap in this regard and it would depend upon the evidence led by the prosecution to remove the possibility of any other person meeting the deceased in the intervening period. Murder—Acquittal—Circumstantial Evidence—There was gap of 8½ hours when deceased was seen alive with accused—It is considerable gap between the time of crime

  2007(2) LAW HERALD (SC) 1409 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.N. Agrawal The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.P. Naolekar Criminal Appeal No. 873 of…

Service Matters

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section – 33(1)(a), 33A – Order of dismissal – The respondent filed an application under Section 33(1)(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 contending that since the dispute relating to an employee in Bhadrak zone was pending adjudication in the Industrial Tribunal, without the leave of the Tribunal under Section 33A his service could not be terminated

(1997) 84 CLT 531 : (1997) 2 LLJ 382 : (1996) 9 SCALE 277 : (1997) 9 SCC 296 : (1997) SCC(L&S) 1297 : (1996) 9 SCR 380 Supp SUPREME…