Civil law

In the issue whether the Principal District Court can modify arbitral awards under Section 34 & Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (AC Act) the five member Constitutional Bench  in Gayatri Balasamy v M/S Isg Novasoft Technologies Limited [2025 INSC 605] decided that under the Sections 34 & 37, the Principal District Court has no power to modify the award.

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.

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).

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].

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].

The Supreme Court directs the Courts and Registration Authorities to report cash transactions exceeding ₹2 lakhs to the Income Tax Department, in a judgement in The Correspondence RBANMS Educational Institution VERSUS B. Gunashekar & Another [2025 INSC 490].

If someone has falsely personated another, and got registered by a registration officer any deed, which is detrimental to the interest of another person, the registration of such deed can be cancelled by the Inspector General of Registration (IG of Registration) in Kerala, under Section 83 A of the Registration Act, 1908.

Simply because the patient has not responded favourably to the surgery or the treatment administered by a doctor or that the surgery has failed, the doctor cannot be held liable for medical negligence straightway by applying the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor unless it is established by evidence that the doctor failed. to exercise the due skill possessed by him in discharging of his duties.

The Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and the Order 43 of the CPC enlists the orders against which appeal can be filed. No other order other than those expressly provided in the above provisions in the CPC can be appealed against before a higher court.

The principles to guide courts while considering applications for setting aside abatement and consequent impleading are laid down by the Supreme Court (SC) Om Prakash Gupta Alias Lalloowa (Now Deceased) v Satish Chandra (Now Deceased) based on the judicial precedents.

The Supreme Court (SC) in its judgment  in Mithailal Dalsangar Singh v Annabai Devram Kini says that the courts have to adopt a justice-oriented approach dictated by the uppermost consideration that ordinarily a litigant ought not to be denied an opportunity of having a case determined on merits unless he has, by gross negligence, deliberate inaction or something akin to misconduct, disentitled himself from seeking the indulgence of the court. 

A preliminary inquiry must be conducted before registering a criminal case against a teacher for any bonafide act done in the school to discipline their students and the accused teacher should not be arrested during the preliminary enquiry. Such an enquiry is essential to ensure that teachers are not unfairly targeted, says the High Court of Kerala (HCK) in Sibin SV v State of Kerala [2025: KER:20847].