admin_nupur

Name of the Case:- SAMYAK JAIN AND ORS v. KESRILAL MEHTA AND ORS. ,2025 (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5289 OF 2025) Name of the Court:- Hon’ble Supreme Court Court Held:- Unmarried Daughter, Even if Employed, Is a Dependant for Accident Compensation. The Supreme Court of India, in a significant judgment concerning motor accident claims, has ruled […]

CHARGES SHOULD BE SPECIFIC AGAINST FAMILY MEMBERS FOR PROSECUTION, OTHERWISE IT MAY AMOUNT TO MISUSE OF CRIMINAL PROCESS In Geddam Jhansi v. State of Telangana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 263, the Division Bench of BV Nagarathna and N. Kotiswar Singh*, JJ in SC quashes DV and Dowry case against two and inter-alia held that: –

Supreme Court reinstates lecturer, rules age-limit rules wrongly applied in 18-year-old appointment dispute. The Supreme Court set aside the Gauhati High Court’s order and reinstated the appellant, holding that the 2003 Rules (which imposed an age limit) did not apply to the selection process conducted under the 2001 Rules for an aided college post. The

Supreme Court halts vengeance FIR, slams criminalization of civil disputes. The Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings, ruling that the FIR was a malicious counterblast to a civil dispute and amounted to an abuse of the legal process. The allegations, even if true, disclosed no criminal offence and fell within the categories laid down in

Supreme Court backs government, upholds land takeback after 50-year legal battle. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, ruling that the colonial-era land grants were validly rescinded for non-cultivation. The Court found no legal basis for the landowners’ claims of waiver, acquiescence, or mala fides in the government’s action. Court:Supreme Court of India Case:Civil Appeal No.

Supreme Court axes DDA Land auction, orders Bank to refund crores to innocent bidder. The Supreme Court set aside the e-auction because it was conducted illegally. The Bank failed to disclose the DDA’s statutory claims, violating mandatory rules, and the auction purchaser was an innocent party who acted in good faith. Court:Supreme Court of India

Allahabad High Court passed an order in case ofPraveen Chetri v. State of UP, Application u/S 482 No. – 31545 of 2024, decided on 16-09-2025]…

⚖️👉सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने कावेरी प्लास्टिक्स द्वारा दिल्ली हाईकोर्ट के एक आदेश के खिलाफ दायर अपील को खारिज कर करते हुए कहा है किधारा 138 एनआई एक्ट के तहत नोटिस अमान्य यदि चेक राशि का सटीक उल्लेख नहीं; टाइपिंग की गलती बचाव का आधार नहीं: सुप्रीम कोर्ट सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने परक्राम्य लिखत अधिनियम, 1881 (Negotiable Instruments

Minor The Family Court has no jurisdiction to decide the question of the appointment of the guardian about the property of the minor. If an application is there for joint prayer for appointment of guardian for person and property of minor even that applications to be decided by District Judge and not by Family Court.

Minor. Residence of mother is deemed to be the place of residence of the minor. The word “ordinarily resides” came for consideration by this Court in AIR 1956 All 328 Smt. Kamla v. Bhanu Mal where it was held that where the mother leaves the place where she had been residing as a permanent resident