Power of Attorney Holder cannot Depose for Principal

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

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].

Medical Negligence & the Law Relating to It

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.

A Case Must be Decided on Merit Unless the Litigant Makes Lapses

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. 

Not to Register a Criminal Case against a Teacher Relating to School Discipline without a Preliminary Probe

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].

Law Relating to Conversion of Paddy or Wetland in Kerala

The owner or the person in custody of any paddy land or wet land in Kerala shall not have any power to convert or reclaim such lands, since the enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (2008 Act) on 12th August 2008 and the allied rules enacted in 2008. The removal of sand from wetland is also prohibited by the 2008 Act. However, there are two exceptions to this general rule. One is that the owner of the land can seek permission to convert paddy land and construct a residence, and the other is conversion of land for public purposes.