Madhya Pradesh High Court | ‘Violation of individual privacy’; Request for DNA test denied in property dispute
Madhya Pradesh High Court: G.S. Ahluwalia, J. dismissed a petition which was filed against the order passed by Twelfth Civil
Madhya Pradesh High Court: G.S. Ahluwalia, J. dismissed a petition which was filed against the order passed by Twelfth Civil
Punjab and Haryana High Court: Alka Sarin, J., while dismissing the appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the judgments passed
Chhattisgarh High Court: A Division Bench of Goutam Bhaduri and Deepak Kumar Tiwari JJ. entitled father-in-law to pay maintenance to widowed daughter-in-law
African Court on Human and People’s Rights (‘AFCHPR’): While deciding the instant matter concerning the eviction of a Kenyan indigenous minority ethnic
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (NCLAT): The Coram of Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Shreesha Merla (Technical Member), held that
Karnataka High Court: Suraj Govindaraj, J., allowed the petition and quashed the compromise decree in the original suit filed before Principal Senior
Supreme Court: The Division Bench comprising of Hemant Gupta* and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ., reversed concurrent findings of Trial Court and Punjab and
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): The Coram of Justice R.K. Agarwal (President) and Dr S.M. Kantikar (Member) expressed that, customer avails
Bombay High Court: Mangesh S. Patil, J., decided on the following questions for consideration: Whether in a suit for partition and possession
Chhattisgarh High Court: Narendra Kumar Vyas, J. allowed an appeal filed by the defendants setting aside the judgment and decree by the
Madras High Court: N. Anand Venkatesh, J., addressed a matter with regard to coparcenary rights of sons and daughters. Plaintiff had sought
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of V.M. Deshpande and Amit Borkar, JJ., expressed that a transaction by a natural guardian of
Bombay High Court: Mangesh S. Patil, J., expressed that, by virtue of Section 19 of the Hindu Succession Act, it has been
Supreme Court: In a case where the Development Plan was finalized in the year 2002, but the same was never implemented nor
Jharkhand High Court: Expressing that the due execution of a Will is to be proved as per the provisions of law as
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of G.S. Patel and Madhav J. Jamdar, JJ., held that Asif i.e. son has no rights
“Once an affidavit has been filed which is on the face of it false to the knowledge of the executants, no benefit can be claimed on the ground that delivery of possession was given.”
by Sanjay Vashishtha†
Cite as: 2022 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 19
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of K.M. Joseph* and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ., held that mere writing the word “cancelled” or drawing
by Pramod Rao†
Cite as: 2022 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 15