SC: Right Of Equity Of Redemption Of Mortgage Is Subsidiary To Right Of Ownership
The case was of Narayan Deorao Javle (Deceased) Vs. Krishna.The decision was given by Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice A S Bopanna. The court added that the decree passed at the back of the transferee mortgagor prior to the filing of the suit for foreclosure cannot be said to be a valid degree. Thus, the bench decided that the right of equity of redemption is subsidiary to the right of ownership.
What do you think about this case?
SC: Process Of Determination Of Motor Accident Compensation Cannot Be By A Continuing Mandamus, It Must Take Place In One Go
The case was of HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Mukesh Kumar. The decision was given by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Hrishikesh Roy. The Supreme Court held that while determining the compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act, a court cannot direct the continued maintenance by Insurance Company of a prosthetic limb for the injured claimant. The process of determination of such compensation cannot be by a continuing mandamus, in a colloquial sense, and the determination must take place at one go.
What do you think about this case?
SC: Tenant In Sufferance Not Entitled To Any Protection Of Rent Act Against SARFAESI Proceedings
The case was of Hemaraj Ratnakar Salian vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. The decision was given by Justice S Abdul Nazeer and Justice Krishna Murari. The court noted that the Rent Act would not come to the aid of a "tenant in sufferance" vis-à-vis the SARFAESI Act due to the operation of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act. As observed by the court, in the present case, there were doubts as to the bona fide of the tenant.
What do you think of this case?
SC: Mere Over Ruling Of Principles By A Subsequent Judgement Will Not Dilute Binding Effect Of Decision On Inter-Parties
The case was of Neelima Sreevastava vs. State of Uttar Pradesh. The decision was given by Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice Krishna Murari. Advocate Nikhil Goel appeared for the appellant and Advocate Harish Pandey appeared for the State-Respondent. The decision of the Division Bench was set aside. The court held that the appellant is held entitled to be regularized with all consequential benefits which may be extended to her within a period of three months.
What do you think about this case?
SC: Genuineness Of Property Transaction Cannot Be Doubted Merely Because Thumb Impression Was Affixed Instead Of Signature
The case was of Lachhmi Narain Singh (D) vs. Sarjug Singh (Dead). The decision was given by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Krishna Murari. Advocate Sreoshi Chatterjee appeared for the appellant and Advocate Abhay Kumar appeared for the respondents. It was noted that every person has a unique thumbprint and hence, forgery of thumb impressions is nearly impossible. Genuineness of property transaction cannot be doubted merely because thumb impression was affixed instead of signature.
What do you think about this case?
Allahabad High Court Directs Advocate General To Not Accept Case Diary Unless IO Certifies That It Is The Complete Original Copy
The case was of Constable Ajeet Singh v. State Of UP and Others. The decision was given by Justice Vivek Agarwal. The Allahabad High Court has instructed the Advocate General for the State of Uttar Pradesh to not accept any case diary unless a certificate is appended to the same by the Investigating Officer that complete original or true copy of the same is being produced.
What do you think about this case?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
