Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
In the case at hand, the wife disclosed a monthly income of ₹1,00,000, her TDS records showed ₹1,64,285. Her husband earned ₹60,000. However, the trial court awarded her ₹20,000 in interim maintenance.
The Court Enhanced the Motor Accident Compensation from ₹15 Lakhs to ₹30 Lakhs.
“The statutory mandate under Section 21, POCSO Act admits of no dilution, no hesitation, and no delay. The duty to report an offence against a child is not a matter of institutional discretion but an imperative cast by the statute, the breach of which itself constitutes a distinct offence.”
In the case at hand, a 25-year-old fish vendor sustained grievous injuries after a car driven at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner collided with his motorcycle.
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.
“Disability, by itself, can never constitute a ground either to authorise the removal of a reproductive organ or to deprive a person of reproductive autonomy. Any such approach would be inconsistent with the constitutional guarantees recognised by the Supreme Court and with the dignity accorded to persons with disabilities under the Constitution and the statutory framework governing their rights.”
Know Thy Judge | Justice Prasanna B. Varale’s remarkable journey from Nippani to the Supreme Court of India
Justice Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale’s journey from the small town of Nippani to the Supreme Court of India is a story of dedication, perseverance, and legal brilliance.
The High Court held Clause 6.7 of the KERC Captive Verification Procedure introducing a dynamic “Unitary Qualifying Ratio” based on actual consumption contrary to Rule 3 Electricity Rules, 2005 and the proportionality benchmark laid down by the Supreme Court in Dakshin Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd. v. Gayatri Shakti Paper and Board Ltd..
In the present case, the petitioner was convicted in three separate cheque dishonour cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arising from a single loan transaction and was sentenced to pay substantial fines, with three months’ simple imprisonment in default in each case.
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.
In the present case, a motor vehicle accident involving 2 motorcycles resulted in grievous injuries to 1 appellant and the death of the other, a 30-year-old supervisor employed in a private company.
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.”
Supreme Court dismissed SLP filed by BMRCL challenging Karnataka High Court judgment restoring arbitral award in favour of Navayuga Engineering Company, reiterating limited scope of interference under Sections 34 and 37, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and upholding award including finance charges as compensatory claim.