A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale passed a judgement in Mahendra Nath Soral & Anr. v. Ravindra Nath Soral And Ors Civil Appeal no. 1980 of 2024 wherein the Supreme Court dismissed the Appeal filed for revaluation of the property that had already been distributed to the legal heirs. Facts A dispute arose between 5 individuals pertaining to partition of the properties left by their ancestor/Late Rameshwar Nath Soral who died on 28.01.1996. He had 3 sons and 2 daughters. Initially a Partition Suit was filed by M ..read more

In a recent matter of Chander Bhan (D) Through LR Sher Singh Vs Mukhtiar Singh & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 2991 of 2024, arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 4134 of 2020, a two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prasanna B. Varale passed a Judgment dated 03-05-2024 and observed that the transactions of sale executed by the subsequent purchasers of the Suit Property i.e. the Respondents No. 1, 2 and 4 would be illegal, as the same were executed during the pendency of the Suit filed by the Appellant. Facts i) In the present case, the Appellant ..read more

A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice B. R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta passed a Judgment dated 03-05-2024 in the matter of Nirmala vs. Kulawant Singh & Ors, Criminal Appeal No.2194/ 2022 and observed that the High Court’s decision to entertain the Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was unjustified. Additionally, the Bench clarified that any observations made in the previous and current Judgment would not be binding in proceedings initiated by the Respondent-Father under the Guardians and Wards Act, of 1890 (the Act). FACTS: i) That the afore ..read more

INTRODUCTION A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale passed an Order dated 01.05.2024 in Civil Appeal No. 1627 Of 2016 in Ram Balak Singh Vs. State of Bihar and Anr. and held that a civil court is not barred from entertaining any lawsuit unless the same is aimed at altering or annulling any decision or order issued by the Consolidation Court, particularly concerning matters under the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956. FACTS i) The Suit was in respect of a Land measuring 0.32 deci ..read more

With the General Elections 2024 having commenced on 19-04-2024, the nation is now geared up to see the results of the Elections that will be declared on 04-06-2024. This 2024 Elections to elect members of the Lok Sabha / House of People is said to be the largest-ever election in the Indian history as it will last for about 44 days. The National Democratic Alliance (NDA) led by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), that formed the Union Government, with Shri. Narendra Modi as the Prime Minister of India (PM) since 2014, has done a lot in the last 10 years and definitely helped India to change its i ..read more

A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Sandeep Mehta passed a Judgment dated 25-04-2024 in the matter of Mohd. Ahsan vs. the State of Haryana, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.5460/2024 and observed that the incident leading to the death of the Deceased was a result of a sudden fight that arose due to a heated argument between the Appellant and the Deceased, and not due to any premeditation. Hence, the Appellant would be liable to be punished for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. FACTS: i) That the Appeal mentio ..read more

A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice B. R Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta passed a Judgment dated 22-04-2024 in the matter of Kariman vs. The State of Chhattisgarh Criminal Appeal No. 2193 / 2024 and observed that the Accused can only be held responsible for knowing that the injury inflicted by him was likely to cause death. Therefore, there is no criminal intent to cause death or cause bodily harm that was likely to cause death. As a result, the Accused’s action falls under the category of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. FACTS: i) That the aforesaid Appeal f ..read more

A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Aravind Kumar passed a judgement in Jyoti Devi v. Suket Hospital & Ors. Special Leave Petition (C) No.242 of 2016 wherein the Supreme Court held that Courts should keep facts in mind while determining the compensation. Facts Jyoti Devi (Claimant/Appellant) was admitted to Suket Hospital at Himachal Pradesh in 2005 for having an appendicitis removal surgery. Post-surgery, the Claimant was still suffering from pains and was admitted again in the hospital and later discharged and was given assurances that she w ..read more

In a recent matter that was decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 05-02-2024 titled as Union Of India and Ors. vs. M/s. B.T. Patil and Sons Belgaum (Construction) Pvt. Ltd., Civil Appeal No.7238 of 2009, the Supreme Court allowed the Respondent, a Class-I contractor, interest for delayed payment by the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT). This case is important as invariably when we fight litigations against the Government Departments, there is a complete apathy on the part of these bodies when it comes to paying refunds or incentives or compensation for the delay caused by the ..read more

Recently, in the matter of Rehan Ahmed (D) Thr. LRs Vs. Akhtar Un Nisa (D) Thr. LRs, Civil Appeal No. 5218 / 2024 arising out of SLP (Civil) No.18772 of 2014, a two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma passed a Judgment dated 22-04-2024 and observed that a decree that is passed based on a duly verified compromise agreement, cannot be challenged. Facts i) In the present case, an Agreement to Sell dated 04-10-1967 was executed in respect of a property being Municipal No. 52- 57, Maniharon Ka Rasta, Jaipur (Suit Property) bet ..read more