Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Can an enhanced compensation award stand despite the exemplar judgments forming its basis being later set aside? The Karnataka High Court addressed this question in a dispute concerning land acquired for the Hassan-Arasikere Railway Project,
The Court enhanced the compensation for the claimants while deciding the case on motor accident, taking into consideration the prospects and dismissed the issue raised by the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (the Company) as they failed to prove any fraud on the claimant’s part.
The instant matter revolves around the applicability of Section 3(1), Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 for claiming the compensation arising out of an accident at the workplace.
The High Court held that once a final decree has been passed, the said decree can neither be amended nor revised, and the only remedy available to a party is to challenge the decree under the appropriate provisions of law.
The Court set aside the impugned judgment imposing the penalty under Article 5(e)(i) of the Schedule to the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. The statute does not have a residual clause for Article 5(e) nor provides for a scenario where the property was previously handed over to the purchasee prior to the agreement to sell was to be entered into.
Since there was no agreement between the parties to make payment beyond the stipulated date. The judgment-debtor cannot escape liability from the consequences of a stipulated compliance agreed in a mediated settlement.
In the case at hand, it was contended that although the provisions of Order 13 Rule 9 CPC provide for return to the party who has filed, the petitioner could ask for the return of such documents.
Karnataka high court enhanced the compensation by ₹89,140. The Court must consider the loss of amenities, future earnings in motor accident claims especially when the accident left the petitioner disabled.
Holding that delay in filing a written statement can be condoned only in exceptional circumstances and not as a matter of routine, the Karnataka High Court dismissed a petition seeking to place a written statement on record after a delay of 4745 days.
The Karnataka High Court enhanced the motor accident compensation awarded to the husband and children of the deceased housewife from ₹7,60,000 to ₹10,02,888, correcting the notional income and adding future prospects that the Tribunal had failed to award
“Unless the breach is so fundamental that it has contributed to the cause of the accident, the Insurance Company cannot avoid its liability.”
The Supreme Court Collegium recommended Justice Tara’s transfer from Delhi High Court in August, which was confirmed by Law Ministry on 14-10-2025.
“The petitioner was not a person doing clerical or menial jobs but was a qualified graduate who had received specialized training in his field of work.”
The Supreme Court Collegium had recommended the transfer of 14 Judges in August 2025, out of which 11 Judges were transferred by the President on 14-10-2025.
Stay informed on the latest Supreme Court judgments of September 2025 on Waqf Act; affirmation of clean chit to Reliance’s Vantara; 8 NLUs directed to undertake Project Ability Empowerment; Directions for improver Beggars’ Homes and Court coming to the aid of communal riots victim. Explore notable rulings shaping the legal landscape.
On 27-8-2025, the Supreme Court of India had notified the Collegium’s decision to recommend transfer/repatriation of 14 Judges, including Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju.
The issues that have been set up in defence by the respondent are such that it will not be possible for him to succeed even if these are entertained, so far as concerns the recovery of possession of the subject premises. No useful purpose will thus be served if the matter goes to trial on the prayer for recovery of possession.
“The fact that IndiaMART provides an option for a seller to choose the brand of its products specifically describing its goods cannot, prima facie, be held to be a ground to hold that it aids and abets the infringer in displaying the counterfeit products of a particular brand.”
The Court inferred that the minimum compensation amount that was set out for the victim was contradictory to the intended purpose of providing adequate rehabilitation and care to acid attack victims.
The Court finds reconsideration of respondent 1’s application for registration of the trade mark ‘CLARIWASH’ registered 14 years ago, on account of procedural error manifestly unfair.