Lawwatch : Legal Resources for Learners

Motor Vehicle Compensation Must be Decided based on Functional Disability, but not Medical Disability

By K Rajasekharan 5 September 2025Motor Vehicles ActNo Comments

In Anoop Maheshwari v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd [2025 INSC 1076], the Supreme Court held that the disability to be assessed for the purpose of awarding compensation in motor vehicle compensation is the functional disability.

Void Document is a Legal Nullity: It Needs No Cancellation

By K Rajasekharan 4 September 2025Property & SuccessionNo Comments

The Kerala High Court, in K.M. Cherian v. Ammini [2025:KER:49425] has reiterated the well-established legal principle that a document which is void ab initio (void from the beginning) is a legal nullity (non-est) and does not need to be formally set aside or declared void by a court.

Legal Status of Property Purchased by a Husband in his Wife’s Name

By K Rajasekharan 1 September 2025Property & Succession

When a husband purchases property using his own funds but registers it in his wife's name, Indian law presumes it to be a gift to the wife, making her the absolute owner. This legal principle is known as the "presumption of advancement."

Supreme Court Quashes Prosecution Launched Without Govt. Sanction

By K Rajasekharan 31 August 2025Corruption & Bribery cases

In Vinod Chandra Semwal v. Special Police Establishment, the Supreme Court of India reaffirmed the principle that a valid government sanction is a mandatory prerequisite for prosecuting a public servant for certain offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) and the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

Board of Directors is the Competent Authority to Sanction Prosecution of Cooperative Bank Employees

By K Rajasekharan 30 August 2025Corruption & Bribery cases

In K.M. Philip v. State of Kerala, the High Court of Kerala adjudicated a key legal issue: whether the State Government is the competent authority to grant sanction for the prosecution of employees of a service cooperative bank registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969.

Criminal Court has Inherent Bar in Recalling or Reviewing its judgment

By K Rajasekharan 29 August 2025Criminal law

In Vikram Bakshi & Ors. v. R.P. Khosla & Anr. [ 2025 INSC 1020], the Supreme Court held that Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) bars criminal courts from altering or reviewing their own judgments once signed. The only exception expressly provided in the statute is for the correction of a clerical or arithmetical error.

Sanction under Section 17A of Prevention of Corruption Act

By K Rajasekharan 29 August 2025Corruption & Bribery cases

In Shankara Bhat and Ors vs. State of Kerala and Ors., the Kerala High Court held that the protection afforded by Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA), is exclusively confined to offenses arising from a public servant's recommendations or decisions made in the discharge of their official duties.

Need for Sanction under Section 19 of the PCA for Court-Ordered Investigation

By K Rajasekharan 28 August 2025Corruption & Bribery cases

The government sanction, under section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA), is a prerequisite for a court in ordering an investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) on a private complaint, against a public servant, the High Court of Kerala states in C.V. Balan & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Proof of Demand for Bribe Required for Conviction on it

By K Rajasekharan 27 August 2025Corruption & Bribery cases

In the judgment of T. K. Krishnankutty v. State of Kerala [2025 0 KER 24020], the High Court of Kerala held that proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for a conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act.

Sanction to Prosecute a Public Servant Under Section 197 CrPC

By K Rajasekharan 26 August 2025Criminal law

In the Indian criminal justice system, Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) serves as a critical procedural safeguard. It is designed to protect public servants from frivolous, vexatious, or malicious criminal proceedings, thereby enabling them to perform their official duties without fear or undue harassment.