Importance of Framing of Issues in a Civil Suit

To decide a case properly the framing of the issues should be appropriate. The framing of issues would help the parties to lead necessary evidence in support of the claims and the reliefs. It will give the other party to confront or construct the case to bring home his defence. Issues are the lamp post which enlightens the parties, the trial and the appellate court as to what the controversy is, what the evidence must be, and where the truth in the dispute lies.

Bank not to publish Loan Defaulter’s Photo & Details: Kerala High Court

A bank publishing the photo and details of defaulting borrowers to coerce them to repay loan invades a person's right to live with dignity and reputation under Article 21 of the Constitution, says the Kerala High Court in, The Mangement Committee of Chempazhanthi Agricultural Improvement Co-operative Society and Another v The Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies [2024:KER:97047].

Authorised Signatory of a Cheque can be held liable for Dishonour only if Company is an Accused

The Supreme Court (SC) in Bijoy Kumar Moni v Paresh Manna & Anr [2024 INSC 1024], reiterated that the authorised signatory of a company cannot be held liable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for dishonour of a cheque drawn on the company's account, unless the company is arraigned as the principal accused.

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].