Lawwatch : Legal Resources for Learners -

Criminal Law Cannot be Set in Motion Suppressing Material Facts

By K Rajasekharan 7 May 2025Criminal lawNo Comments

The Supreme Court (SC) addressed the issue of whether the complaint filed by a complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, suppressing material facts, is valid in Rekha Sharad Ushir v Saptashrungi Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsansta Ltd [ 2025 INSC 399].

Advocate can File Petition for Restoring a Suit Dismissed for Default

By K Rajasekharan 4 May 2025Civil lawNo Comments

A suit, which was dismissed for default, can be set aside and restored to file under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), on the basis of an application made by the Advocate on the strength of Vakalatnama executed by the plaintiff in his favour in the interest of justice, says the High Court of Kerala in Balakrishnan v Geetha N G.

SC not to Take over the Role of Organs of the State under Article 142

By K Rajasekharan 2 May 2025Constitutional lawNo Comments

In the Constitutional Bench decision in Supreme Court Bar Association vs Union of India & Another [AIR 1998 SC 1895], the Supreme Court (SC) held that wider the amplitude of the power of the SC under Article 142, the greater is the need for it to see that the power is used with restraint.

Additional Witness can be Examined u/s 311 CrPC, if Court Permits

By K Rajasekharan 1 May 2025Criminal lawNo Comments

An additional witness summoned as per Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) can be examined as a Prosecution Witness if the court finds that such a person ought to have been examined as a prosecution witness, but was omitted due to oversight, mistake or for any other reason.

MACT can Award Higher Compensation than What is Claimed

By K Rajasekharan 1 May 2025Motor Vehicles ActNo Comments

The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (MACT) has power to award higher compensation than what is claimed by the claimant, if the claimant is eligible for more than what was originally claimed, says the SC in Mona Baghel & Others v Sajjan Singh Yadav & Others.

Demand of Bribe to be Proved in Bribery Case

By K Rajasekharan 30 April 2025Criminal lawNo Comments

A Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court (SC) declares, in Neeraj Dutta v State ( Govt of NCT, New Delhi) [2023(1) KLD 1 (SC), that the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a Public Servant is a sine qua non to establish the guilt under Section 7 & 13 (1) (d) (i) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA).

What a Magistrate can do When he Receives a Complaint?

By K Rajasekharan 29 April 2025Criminal lawNo Comments

On receipt of a written complaint, under Section 2(d) CrPC, a Judicial Magistrate or Special Judge, who is competent to take cognizance of the case, have five options to take, says the High Court of Kerala in Dr. Mathew A. Kuzhalnadan v Pinarayi Vijayan & Others [2025:KER:26809].

In Drunken Driving, Blood Test Essential if Arrested, Otherwise Breathalyzer Result Would be Enough

By K Rajasekharan 28 April 2025Motor Vehicles ActNo Comments

The Kerala High Court in Benny Mon v State of Kerala [2025:KER:22425] says, if a person is arrested for drunken driving under Section 185 of the MV Act, he has to be subjected to medical examination.

SC Directions for Preventing Workplace Sexual Harassment

By K Rajasekharan 28 April 2025Civil lawNo Comments

On 3rd December 2024, the Supreme Court (SC), in Aureliano Fernandes v The State of Goa, passed comprehensive directions for the effective compliance of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act).

Power of Attorney Holder cannot Depose for Principal

By K Rajasekharan 27 April 2025Civil lawNo Comments

A Power of Attorney Holder cannot depose for principal in respect of matters of which only principal can have personal knowledge and in respect of which the principal is liable to be cross-examined, says the Supreme Court (SC) in Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani & Anr. v Indusind Bank Ltd. & Ors [AIR 2005 SC 439]. The SC reaffirms the above dictum in Rajesh Kumar v Anand Kumar [2024 INSC 426].

A Party to Suit, Denying the compromise, Cannot Directly Appeal Against Compromise Decree

By K Rajasekharan 26 April 2025Civil lawNo Comments

When a party to the suit denies a lawful compromise, the person has to go back to the Trial Court under the proviso to Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1906 ( CPC) and ask that Court to decide whether the compromise is valid, says the Supreme Court (SC) in Sakina Sultanali Sunesara ( Momin) v Shia Imami Ismaili Momin Jamat Samaj & Others [2025 INSC 570].

Ordering CBI Investigation cannot be Challenged by Prospective Accused

By K Rajasekharan 25 April 2025Criminal lawNo Comments

A direction for an investigation by the CBI issued by a constitutional court is not open to challenge by the prospective suspect or accused, and the matter for entrusting investigation to a particular agency is basically the discretion of the court, says the Supreme Court (SC) in Ramachandraiah & Another v M Manjula & Others [2025 INSC 556].