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

Retrenchment–Compensation–Principle of 26 working days for determining the compensation under Section 25F(b) of I.D. Act is not justified. Interpretation of Statute– Ordinary meaning of the words should not be departed from unless it can be shown that the legal context in which the words are used requires a different meaning.

2007(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 609 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.P. Mathur The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari Civil Appeal No. 252 of 2007…

Service Matters

ervice Law–Determination of Rights of an employee–Where the rights had been determined in favour of some employees and attained finality in a duly constituted proceeding–Subsequent judgment taking contrary view would not adversely affect the applicants in whose cases the orders had attained finality.

2007(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 579 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. 322 of 2007…