Right of the Legal Heir over the Nominee on a Bank Deposit

Who is the legitimate claimant when the bank deposit/insurance amount of a deceased person is claimed simultaneously by both the nominee on the one hand and the legal heir on the other? The laws have no specific provision to differentiate between legitimacy of a nominee and a legal heir in receiving the deposit/insurance amount of the deceased person. But a few case laws shed light on the issue.

Unlawful Constructions should not be Regularized

The construction made in contravention of the Acts / Rules would be construed as illegal and unauthorized construction, which has to be necessarily demolished and it cannot be legitimized or protected solely under the ruse of the passage of time or citing inaction of the authorities or by taking recourse to the excuse that substantial money has been spent on the said construction, says the Supreme Court (SC) in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya & Another v U P Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors [2024 INSC 990].

Who can sue on behalf of a Cooperative Society in Kerala?

As per the registered bye-laws of most of the Co-operative Society, the Society can sue and be sued through its Secretary, etc. Therefore, the Act and the Rules clearly envisage that the registered bye-laws should provide provisions as to who is the Officer, who can sue or be sued, in the name of the Co-operative Society concerned says Kerala High Court in J.S.Prakash v The Thiruvananthapuram Service Cooperative Bank.

Injunction can be Granted even against the True Owner

Injunction may be granted even against the true owner of the property, when the person seeking the relief is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the property and also legally entitled to be in possession. He can be disposed of the property only through due process of law, says the Supreme Court ( SC) in Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji (Deceased) Through L.R.s vManiben Jagmalbhai (Deceased) Through L.R.s and Ors.

A Road connected to a Road Network becomes Public Road

The moot question that came up before the Kerala High Court in Mariam Beevi v The Secretary, Athirampuzha Grama Panchayat was whether a road that was leading to the houses of the petitioner and six others was an exclusive private path, meant for the benefit of those seven persons; or a public road vested in the respondent Grama Panchayat, meant for the benefit of the general public.

OP under Article 227 impermissible Against Appellate Order in Domestic Violence case

An Original Petition (OP) under Article 227 of the Constitution is not possible against an appellate order issued by the Court of Session under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (DV Act), but what is possible is a Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) as stated in Kunjumon C K v State of Kerala [ 2024 (6) KHC 45].