Rohit Chaudhary & Anr. Vs Vipul Ltd. (Supreme Court of India) Sub- Whether-delay in delivery of office space by a builder is a dispute maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act and consequently the purchaser of such commercial space is eligible to get the refund of money with interest? This judgement will be helpful in dealing […]
SC settled the issue as to whether a child, born from a invalid marriage under Hindu Marriage Act, is entitled to ancestral/coparcenary property or only to the self-earned/separate property of parents
Required certificate under Section 65B(4) of of Evidence Act is unnecessary if original document itself is produced. This can be done by owner of a laptop computer, computer tablet or even a mobile phone, by stepping into witness box and proving that concerned device, on which original information is first stored, is owned and/or operated by him.
SC in Gagandeep Singh v. Union of India & Ors. admitted Writ and issued notice to Revenue Department, challenging GST provisions pertaining to power to arrest and power to summon.
Supreme Court of India addresses the differentiation between ‘basic wage’ as defined by EPF Act and ‘minimum wage’ under Minimum Wages Act.
In present facts of the case, the matter was remanded and it was observed that the order of this Court dismissing the appeal cannot be read as a precedent and applied to the cases in hand. In fact, precedents cannot decide questions of fact.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that when in a Conveyance deed the arrangement of re-purchase was provided then the said agreement cannot be treated as a Mortgage Agreement unless the condition is embodied in the document which effects or purports to effect the sale.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Judgment of High Court, wherein adequate compensation was provided on Land Acquisition while considering the relevant factors such as determining the deduction for development charges, the nature of land, area under acquisition, whether the land is developed or not, if developed to what extent, and the purpose of acquisition.
In present facts of the case, it was observed that an application under Order IX Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code for setting aside exparte decree would be maintainable as evidence of the defendants was not even started and the defendants’ counsel had not even cross-examined the plaintiff’s evidence.
In present facts of the case, the Honble Supreme Court have given directions to the Central Information Commission and the State Information Commissions to ensure proper implementation of the mandate of Section 4 of the RTI Act,
