Misjoinder of Causes of Action in Civil Cases

12 June 2025Posted inArticlesNo Comments
Misjoinder of cause of action occurs when multiple unrelated claims, or claims against different defendants without a common link, are improperly combined in a single lawsuit.  Misjoinder is the improper joining of parties or causes of action in a lawsuit. It occurs when claims that are not related or involve different defendants are combined into a single suit, without a common thread linking them.

Lok Adalat Has no Adjudicatory Powers but Permanent Lok Adalat Has

8 June 2025Posted inOthersNo Comments
The Legal Services Authorities Act,1987 (LSA Act) refers to two types of Lok Adalats: the first is a Lok Adalat constituted under Section 19 of the Act which has no adjudicatory functions or powers and which discharges purely conciliatory functions and the second is a Permanent Lok Adalat established under section 22B(1) of LSA Act to exercise jurisdiction in respect of public utility services, having both conciliatory and adjudicatory functions.

Attachment of property by the Court Should Confine to the Proportionate Extent

6 June 2025Posted inCivil lawNo Comments
The court must bring only such portion of the property, the proceeds of which would be sufficient to satisfy the claim of the decree holder, for attachment to be sold, if the property is large and the decree to be satisfied is small. This is not a discretion, but an obligation imposed on the court, says the Supreme Court (SC), in Ambati Narasayya v M. Subba Rao & Another [1990 AIR 119].

Abetment to Suicide Cannot be Charged on a Teacher for Scolding the Student

2 June 2025Posted inCriminal law
Abetment to suicide cannot be charged on a teacher for mere scolding of a student who consequently committed suicide, and no normal person could have imagined that a scolding, that too based on a complaint by a student, would result in suicide of the student so scolded, says the Supreme Court (SC) in Thangavel v The State, Through Inspector of Police & Another.

Recovery of Tainted Money Not Enough for Conviction Without Proof of Demand for Bribe

28 May 2025Posted inCorruption & Bribery cases
Mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient to trigger the presumption of guilt under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, unless the entire chain of events i.e., the demand, acceptance, and recovery is established, says the Supreme Court (SC) in State of Lokayuktha Police Davangere v C B Nagaraj [2025 INSC 736].