NewsLaw.in’s Post

In a critical judgment, the Supreme Court of India in Vijay Laxman Bhawe vs. P & S Nirman Pvt. Ltd. reinforced that "entertaining an application filed by a stranger is totally unsustainable in law." This decision, delivered by Honorable Justice B.R. Gavai, underscores the importance of procedural integrity. This ruling sets a crucial precedent for ensuring that only directly involved parties can influence legal proceedings, thereby maintaining the sanctity of the judicial process. Dive into our detailed analysis to understand the profound impact of this judgment on future litigation in India. https://lnkd.in/gUkCkUMT

⏭️ Coming up next! ⏭️ Article 3 - The Law of Adverse Possession This A-3 is all about exploring Supreme Court of India's recent stance on on the Doctrine of Adverse Possession—balancing property rights and legal claims. Stay Tuned! 27th November 2024 at 12.30 p.m. #LegalInsights #AdversePossession #SupremeCourtofIndia

Today's the day! Don't miss out on the insightful discussion about Legal Insights and Strategies to combat Counterfeiting and Smuggling with Mr. PK Malhotra, Former Secretary of Law at the Ministry of Law & Justice, Government of India. Join us today at 7 pm!

In the notable case of Prem Raj v. Poonamma Menon, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India ('Court') addresses the pivotal issue of whether criminal proceedings can persist in the face of a prior civil court ruling. Our associate Mr. Nitish Solanki explores this complex interaction between civil decrees and criminal prosecutions, highlighting the Court’s decision to quash criminal charges against Prem Raj following a civil decree that declared a disputed cheque as merely a security. This judgment reinforces the principle that civil court findings can preclude criminal actions on the same matters, advocating for legal consistency and respect for civil adjudications in criminal jurisprudence. The author’s analysis emphasizes the need for coherence in legal proceedings and the significance of the standard of proof differences between civil and criminal cases. Please read the full article here: https://lnkd.in/gpn6Ed-2 #MetalegalAdvocates #MetalegalCourtRuling #CivilLaw #CriminalLaw #SupremeCourtIndia #NegotiableInstrumentsAct #LegalInsights

'Delhi High Court Orders Return of Seized Items After Finding No Legal Proceedings under PMLA' The Delhi High Court's recent ruling in Mr. Mahender Kumar Khandelwal v. Directorate of Enforcement and Anr. addresses the unconstitutional extended property seizures under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). It was decided that retaining seized property beyond 365 days without ongoing proceedings is confiscatory and violates Article 300A of the Constitution. This landmark judgment delineates the scope of s. 8(3) of the PMLA, emphasizing that seized property must be returned if not related to active legal proceedings, thus balancing investigation needs with constitutional property rights. This decision marks a significant step towards protecting individual rights against arbitrary state action. For a detailed understanding, please read the full article authored by our associate Mr. Aditya Gupta: https://lnkd.in/gEntvh3k #MetalegalAdvocates #MetalegalCourtRuling #PMLA #DelhiHighCourt #ConstitutionalRights #PropertySeizure #JudicialInterpretation #Article300A #LegalPrecedent

Most Awaited Judgement: Can Parties Seek Rehearing Before a Different Bench? The Hon’ble apex court has consistently emphasized the importance of promptly delivering judgments after hearings. If a judgment is not delivered within six months, parties may seek a rehearing by a different bench. An extract from a landmark ruling* underscores this urgency: “It is true, that for the High Courts, no period for pronouncement of judgment is contemplated either under the Code of Civil Procedure or the Criminal Procedure Code, but as the pronouncement of the judgment is a part of justice dispensation system, it has to be without delay. In a country like ours where people consider the Judges only second to God, efforts be made to strengthen that belief of the common man. Delay in disposal of the cases facilitates the people to raise eye-brows, some time genuinely which, if not checked, may shake the confidence of the people in the judicial system” Notably, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has managed to deliver judgments within 2-3 months for complex cases, including constitutional bench matters like Article 370 and Maharashtra State assembly… With just a few days remaining in the attached case, is the Hon’ble Supreme Court exempt from the same six-month limitation period? *(2001) 7 SCC 318

Bombay High Court No person can indirectly introduce his/her case through submission of Evidence to the extent such person right to file a written statement is forefeited. Excerpts introduce his case. "In the absence of any specific provisions dealing with non-filing of written statements/forfeiture of the right to file a written statement, taking note of the general position as above, it can only be held that it should bar the opposite party in a proceeding before the Consumer Redressal Forums to bring in pleadings, indirectly to introduce its/his case and evidence to support such case." Case Title: Kaushik Narsinhbhai Patel & Ors. Versus M/s. S.J.R. Prime Corporation Private Limited & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 8176 of 2022 https://lnkd.in/gFZ-mfhX Source : livelaw

In Para 21 of the Judgment, it was observed “Before we part with the judgment, we must record some serious concerns based on our judicial experience. Case after case, we find that the arbitral proceedings have become synonymous with very bulky pleadings and evidence and very long, time consuming submissions, leading to very lengthy awards.  Moreover, there is a tendency to rely upon a large number of precedents, relevant or irrelevant.  The result of all this is that we have very long hearings before the Courts in Sections 34 and 37 proceedings. #supremecourtofindia #arbitration #process #judicialexperience #legaldeli https://lnkd.in/dAyk5HTg

The Madras High Court has ruled that a will over 30 years old, produced from proper custody, is presumed to be valid under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act. However, the presumption applies only to the execution, signature, and attestation, not the contents of the document, which must be separately proved. The court dismissed the appeal challenging the will’s validity and upheld the decision of the lower courts. ⚖️ #madraslaw #indianevidenceact #section90 #courtdecisions #legalnews #willdispute #propertylaw #lawupdate #justice

Whether dismissal of suit for partition under order 9 rule 8 of cpc precludes plaintiff for filing subsequent suit for partition on same cause of action/properties? No. Karnataka High Court in S. K. Lakshminarasappa Vs. Sri. B. Rudraiah, 2013 (1) KCCR 672 (DB) held that "The only effect of an order made under Order 9 Rue 8 is that a fresh suit based on the same cause of action is precluded by the provisions of Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code. It will not apply to the cases where the cause of action is recurring or continuous. A suit for partition dismissed for default under Order 9 Rule 8 of CPC does not bar a subsequent suit for partition. The reason is that the right to enforce a partition is a continuous right, which is a legal incident of a joint tenancy and which ensures so long as the joint tenancy continues. Cause of action is continuous in partition cases which subsists so long as the property is held jointly."