Tag: JUDGMENTS

How to compute compensation payable to the dependants of the deceased under MV Act-United India Insurance Vs. Satinder Kaur-30/06/2020

By on

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors-U/S. 166/168 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988-The Constitution Bench in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors[ (2017) 16 SCC 680]affirmed the view taken in Sarla Verma (supra) and Reshma Kumari (supra), and held that the age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. Another three-judge bench in Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mandala Yadagari Goud & Ors.[(2019) 5 SCC 554] traced out the law on this issue, and held that the compensation is to be computed based on what the deceased would have contributed to support the dependants.

While applying Article 227 Constitution, HC cannot act as Court of Appeal-MD. INAM VS SANJAY KR SINGHAL -26/06/2020

By on

Art 227 of Constitution of India – It is a well settled principle of law, that in the guise of exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court cannot convert itself into a court of appeal. It is equally well settled, that the supervisory jurisdiction extends to keeping the subordinate tribunals within the limits of their authority and seeing that they obey the law.

State of Rajasthan vs Mehram & Ors-06/05/2020

By on
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA JUDGMENTS

QUANTUM OF PUNISHMENT-The learned counsel for the accused No. 5 was at pains to persuade us that the said accused is now about 70/­75 years of age and at this distance of time, it may not be appropriate to send him back to jail. Taking overall view of the matter, we are not impressed by this submission. Even in case of offence under Section 326, IPC, which commended to the High Court, the same was punishable with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description which may extend to ten years and also liable to fine. Had it been a conviction under Section 326, as aforesaid, the sentence of only about five months in the facts of the present case, by no stretch of imagination, was adequate.

Triloki Nath Singh vs Anirudh Singh (d) Thr. Lrs & Ors-06/05/2020

By on
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA JUDGMENTS

Whether the decree passed on a compromise can be challenged by the stranger to the proceedings in a separate suit?

The appellant could file a suit for protection of his right, title or interest devolved on the basis of the stated sale deed dated 6th January, 1984, allegedly executed by one of the party (Sampatiya) to the proceedings in the partition suit, which could be examined independently by the Court on its own merits in accordance with law.

Bhagwat Sharan (Dead Thr. Lrs.) vs Purushottam & Ors-03/04/2020

By on
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA JUDGMENTS

Hindu Undivided Family-It is held that where one of the coparceners separated himself from other members of the joint family there was no presumption that the rest of coparceners continued to constitute a joint family. However, it is also held that at the same time there is no presumption that because one member of the family has separated, the rest of the family is no longer a joint family.

NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD. VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF  INCOME TAX-03/04/2020

By on
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA JUDGMENTS

INCOME TAX-whether the revenue has sufficient reasons to believe that undisclosed income of the asseessee has escaped assessment and therefore there are grounds to issue notice. An assessing officer can only re­open an assessment if he has ‘reason to believe’ that undisclosed income has escaped assessment. Mere change of opinion of the assessing officer is not a sufficient to meet the standard of ‘reason to believe’.

RAJA @ AYYAPPAN VS STATE OF TAMIL NADU-01/04/2020

By on

Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act mandates that to make the confession of a co­accused admissible in evidence, there has to be a joint trial. If there is no joint trial, the confession of a co­ accused is not at all admissible in evidence and, therefore, the same cannot be taken as evidence against the other co­accused.