Case Note: Shanti Devi v. Jagan Devi & Ors. Case Citation: 2025 INSC 1105, Civil Appeal No. 11795 of 2025 (@SLP(C) No. 24821/2018) Court: Supreme…
| Posted on: September 15, 2025 |
Delay, Discretion, and State Lethargy: An Analysis of Shivamma (Dead) by LRs v. Karnataka Housing Board, 2025 INSC 1104
The question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration. The rules of limitation are based on the principles of sound public policy and principles of equity. We should not keep the ‘Sword of Damocles’ hanging over the head of the respondent for indefinite period of time to be determined at the whims and fancies of the appellants.
| Posted on: September 14, 2025 |
Reassessing Cheating and Forgery in Regulatory Contexts: Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2025 INSC 1096)
Cheating requires both deception and dishonest inducement, resulting in wrongful loss or gain (Sections 23–25 IPC). Mere deception is insufficient unless it induces a person to part with property or act in a way they would not have otherwise
| Posted on: September 12, 2025 |
Once information discloses a cognizable offence, registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 CrPC. Credibility or genuineness of the information is not a condition precedent: Supreme Court
Mandatory FIR Registration — Once information discloses a cognizable offence, registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 CrPC. Credibility or genuineness of the information is not a condition precedent. The Court reaffirmed Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 2 SCC 1.
| Posted on: September 12, 2025 |
“Liking” a social media post can amount to republication for the purposes of defamation law
This is the first judgment in India to explicitly hold that “liking” a social media post can amount to republication for the purposes of defamation law. It underscores the legal risks of online engagement and the responsibilities of public figures in amplifying content
| Posted on: September 11, 2025 |
Supreme Court lays down tests for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC
Courts must exercise caution in summoning on private complaints, especially in cases involving allegations of rape on a promise of marriage. Delay, vagueness, and lack of independent corroboration undermine the credibility of such complaints. Inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC must be exercised to prevent abuse of process when proceedings are manifestly frivolous or malicious.
| Posted on: September 10, 2025 |
A marriage solemnized in India under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) cannot be dissolved by a foreign court applying foreign law.
The Gujarat High Court held that a marriage solemnized in India under the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) can only be dissolved in accordance with the provisions of the HMA, irrespective of subsequent acquisition of foreign citizenship or domicile. A foreign divorce decree based on grounds not recognized under Indian law (such as irretrievable breakdown) cannot be treated as conclusive under Section 13 CPC. Accordingly, the rejection of the wife’s suits under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, one seeking restitution of conjugal rights and another challenging the validity of an Australian divorce decree, was set aside, affirming that matrimonial status must be adjudicated by Family Courts in India.
| Posted on: September 8, 2025 |
Only a registered sale deed conveys ownership in immovable property. GPA, Agreement to Sell, or Affidavit cannot substitute a sale deed: Supreme Court
Case Note: Ramesh Chand (D) through LRs v. Suresh Chand & Anr. Citation: 2025 INSC 1059 (Supreme Court of India)Bench: Justice Aravind Kumar, Justice Sandeep…
| Posted on: September 7, 2025 |
Refund of stamp duty cannot be denied on hypertechnical grounds when transactions collapse: Bombay High Court
The transactions never fructified, hence there was no transfer of property under Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The absence of a cancellation deed could not defeat the petitioner’s statutory right to refund, especially since vendors were unwilling to cooperate.
| Posted on: September 7, 2025 |
Case Note: Natesan Ekambaram v. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai
Urban agricultural land within statutory limits is taxable as a capital asset. Registered sale deed consideration prevails unless contrary evidence exists. Exemption under Section 54F cannot be denied on technicalities if substantive bank evidence supports construction investment. Mere assertion of ancestral origin is insufficient to establish co-ownership without documentary proof.
| Posted on: September 5, 2025 |