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

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Section 107 – Interference with finding of fact – Considerations for – The rule of practice is that where the evidence is conflicting and decision hinges upon the credibility of witnesses, the appellate court should not interfere with finding of civil Court on question of fact.

  AIR 1951 SC 120 : (1950) 1 SCR 781 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA SARJU PERSHAD — Appellant Vs. RAJA JWALESHWARI PRATAP NARAIN SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before…

Contract Act, 1872 – Sections 17 and 23 – Fraudulent terms – Avoidance of creditor – Rules of Voluntary Provident Fund Trust providing that in case of insolvency of subscriber, the property standing to his credit will vest in the Trust and not the Official Receiver – Such clause if allowed would be fraud perpetrated on insolvency law and therefore is not valid or binding.

  AIR 1956 SC 336 : (1956) 2 LLJ 215 : (1956) 1 SCR 100 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA MUKTI LAL AGARWALA — Appellant Vs. TRUSTEES OF THE PROVIDENT FUND…