3 Important Supreme Court Judgments Pronounced Today [Friday, July 19, 2019]

1. M/s. Treaty Construction v. M/s Ruby Tower Co Op Hsg. Society Ltd.

Consumer Law - Pecuniary Jurisdiction - The National Commission has observed, and rightly so, that such a plea was not specifically raised before the State Commission at the earliest opportunity; and the State Commission having already decided the matter on merits, such a technical objection as regards pecuniary jurisdiction could not have been countenanced before the National Commission.

Case Number : C.A. No. 5699 of 2019 19-07-2019

Petitioner's Advocate : Abha R. Sharma

Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari

2. Rajesh S/o Shrirambapu Fate v. The State of Maharashtra

For the reasons given by us in our judgment of the date in Civil Appeal No.5444 of 2019, Vishal Ashok Thorat and ors. vs. Rajesh Shrirambapu Fate & Ors. this appeal is dismissed.

Case Number : C.A. No. 5687 of 2019 19-07-2019

Petitioner's Advocate : Sunil Kumar Verma

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

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan

3. Vishal Ashok Thorat v. Rajesh Shrirambapu Fate

Assistant Inspector of Motor Vehicles, Group-C in Motor Vehicles Department (Recruitment) Rules 2016 - Rule 3(iii), Rule 3(iv) and Rule 4 - Validity of.

Service Law - PIL should not be entertained in service matter.

Case Number : C.A. No. 5444 of 2019 19-07-2019

Petitioner's Advocate : Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure

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

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan

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