Uncategorized

The Supreme Court, in Union of India v. Radha Kissen Agarwalla and Anr [1969 AIR 762] and in Union of India v. Jyoti Chit Fund & Finance [AIR 1976 SC 1163], consistently held that pension and provident fund amounts retain statutory protection only till they are actually paid to the employee, and that once received, they can be subjected to attachment.

In a suit for the partition of a joint property filed by one co-owner, the other co-owners, even if included as respondents, are entitled to their respective shares with no need to file a formal counterclaim.

In the landmark case of Nahalchand Laloochand v. Panchali Co-op Housing Society [2010 INSC 563], the Supreme Court ruled that open or stilt parking spaces are "common areas" intended for the use of all residents. Consequently, these spaces cannot be sold as independent units. In practice, these areas must be handed over to the housing society and shared among the apartment owners.

The Kerala High Court, in V.K. Thajudheen and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors [2025:KER:88675], directed the State government to pay Rs. 14 Lakhs compensation to a NRI man, Thajudheen, and his family after he was imprisoned for a period of 54 days in judicial custody based on false charge of chain snatching, causing much ignominy to them.

Retirement benefits, such as pension and gratuity, are attachable in maintenance proceedings, observed the High Court of Kerala in Rifa Fathima v Salim [2025:KER:84776].

An employee who resigns or opts for voluntary retirement is entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, provided he has completed at least five years of continuous service, the Supreme Court observed in Ashok Kumar Dabas (Dead Through Legal Heirs) v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2025 INSC 1404].

In Sadiq B. Hanchinmani v. The State Of Karnataka [2025 INSC 1282], the Supreme Court observed that once the facts alleged in the complaint disclose the commission of an offence,…

A civil court can declare a person legally dead if they have not been heard from for seven years, based on Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This is typically done when a legal heir files a civil suit for a declaration of presumed death to settle matters like inheritance, remarriage, or insurance.

The High Court of Kerala, in Margret @Thankam v. Joseph Mathew Chettupuzha [2025: KER:56880], has clarified the conditions under which Indian courts can recognize documents notarized in a foreign country.