3 Important Supreme Court Judgments July 11, 2019

1. Sheoli Hati v. Somnath Das

Custody of Child - What is in the interest of the child depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and has to be decided on its own merits without adhering to any fixed formula or rule.

Case Number : C.A. No. 5388 - 5389 of 2019 11-07-2019

Petitioner's Advocate : Mr. Nikilesh Ramachandran, AOR

Respondent's Advocate : Mr. Ashok Panigrahi, Adv. Mr. S. Vinay Ratnakar, Adv. Mr. Nawab Singh, Adv.

Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan

2. Chief Regional Manager United India Insurance Company Limited v. Siraj Uddin Khan

Nobody could be directed to claim wages for the period that he remained absent without leave or without justification.

Case Number : C.A. No. 5390 of 2019 11-07-2019

Petitioner's Advocate : Mohit Paul

Respondent's Advocate : Respondent-in-person

Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan

3. The All Manipur Pensioners Assn. Regd.no.1315/1973 Under The Societies Registration Act By Its Secre v. The State of Manipur

The State cannot arbitrarily pick and choose from amongst similarly situated persons, a cutoff date for extension of benefits especially pensionary benefits.

Case Number : C.A. No. 10857 of 2016 11-07-2019

Petitioner's Advocate : Ananga Bhattacharyya

Respondent's Advocate : Ashutosh Dubey

Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah, Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.S. Bopanna

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah

Comments

Presumptions are the Bats of the Law, Flitting in the Twilight, but Disappearing in the Sunshine of Actual Facts [ORDER]

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - failure on the part of the complainant to produce his account statement and absence of entry in accounts maintained by him regarding loan advanced to the accused, does show that there was no material to support the basic facts on which the entire case of the complainant was based. Sufficient material was available on record whereby the defence of the accused became probable. In such a situation, the presumption under the provisions of the Act ceased to operate and the burden fell upon the complainant to prove his case, which he failed to do by placing on record cogent evidence.

500+ Supreme Court of India Judgments on Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with Head Notes & Citations

1. Mallamma (dead) By Lrs. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [07-04-2014]

Adverse Possession | Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur, C.A. No. 7764 of 2014 07-08-2019 SC

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA | Arun Mishra , S. Abdul Nazeer & M.R. Shah C.A. No.7764 of 2014 with S.L.P. (C) Nos. 8332 - 8333 of 2014 Radhakrishna Reddy (d) Through Lrs. v. G. Ayyavoo & Ors. August 07, 2019 Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 65 - Adverse Possession - Plea of acquisition of title by adverse possession can be taken by plaintiff under Article 65 of the Limitation Act and there is no bar under the Limitation Act, 1963 to sue on aforesaid basis in case of infringement of any rights of a plaintiff. A person in possession cannot be ousted by another person except by due procedure of law and once 12 years' period of adverse possession is over, even owner's right to eject him is lost and the possessory owner acquires right, title and interest possessed by the outgoing person/owner as the case may be against whom he has prescribed. In our opinion, consequence is that once the right, title or interest is acquired it can be used as a sword by the plaintiff as well...

FIRST LAW

Search This Blog