Articles

21st Nov, 2019

Accused is not competent to tender affidavit by way of evidence in Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 proceedings

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that an accused facing trial under the provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be allowed to tender affidavit by way of evidence.   The said ruling was […]
19th Nov, 2019

A certificate of registration of marriage and not a registered contract of marriage is a valid proof of marriage

The Supreme Court held that a contract of marriage does not fulfil the requisites of sub-clause (2) of Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act and cannot be taken to be proof of a valid […]
19th Nov, 2019

Government servant cannot raise any dispute before Consumer forum about their service conditions or retiral benefits:

The Supreme Court has observed that a government servant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and cannot raise any dispute regarding the pension and retiral benefits before the consumer forum under […]
4th Nov, 2019

The State cannot enact a legislation providing an appeal directly to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court in its latest decision held that State Legislature cannot make law which takes away the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court and provides an appeal directly to the Supreme Court. The Court […]
2nd Nov, 2019

The provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 would have an over­riding effect over the Tea Act, 1953 and that no prior consent of the Central Government before initiation of the proceedings under Section 7 or Section 9 of the IBC would be required.

The Supreme Court in the matter of Duncans Industries Ltd. vs. A.J. Agrochem upheld the order of the NCLAT allowing the insolvency petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 initiated by […]
31st Oct, 2019

‘Amount Due’ not required to be proved in a proceeding under Negotiable Instruments Act in the same manner as if proving debt before Civil Court

The Supreme Court has observed that a complainant in a cheque bounce case need not prove the ‘amount due’ as if he is to prove a debt before civil court. The said ratio was held […]
30th Oct, 2019

Revenue Records do not confer title to a property, nor do they have any presumptive value on title:

The Supreme Court has reiterated that the revenue records do not confer title to a property nor do they have any presumptive value on the title.   The above mention observation was made in the […]
25th Oct, 2019

Purchaser of goods for Commercial Purpose is a ‘Consumer’ under Section 2 (1) (d) of COPRA, if he uses it himself for earning his livelihood

  The Supreme Court observed that if the commercial use of goods is by the purchaser himself for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment, such purchaser of goods is a ‘consumer’. […]
7th Oct, 2019

Petition filed under section 433 of Companies Act 1956 beyond the period of three-years mentioned in Article 137 of the Limitation Act is time-barred, and cannot therefore be proceeded further

The Supreme Court in the matter of Jignesh Shah & Anr. v Union of India & Ors. (W.P. Civil No. 455/2019), decided on 25.09.2019 set aside the judgment of NCLAT & NCLT admitting a winding […]
7th Oct, 2019

Witnesses To Sale Deed/Will Need Not Necessarily Know Its Contents

The Supreme Court has observed that the witnesses to documents such as Sale Deeds and Wills need not necessarily know what is contained in them.   The said observations were recorded in the matter of […]
3rd Oct, 2019

Father’s self acquired property given to son by way of Will/gift will retain the character of self acquired property and will not become ancestral property, unless a contrary intention is expressed in the testament.

The Supreme Court had observed that as per Mitakshara law of Succession, father’s self acquired property given to son by way of Will/gifts will retain the character of self acquired will retain the character of […]
1st Oct, 2019

A client is not bound by an erroneous concession of law made by his lawyer before a judicial authority

The Supreme Court held that an erroneous concession in law can neither be binding on the client nor on the Court as there cannot be an estoppel against law. The above judgement was passed in […]