Lawwatch : Legal Resources for Learners

Indigence is the Sole Criteria for Compassionate Appointment

By K Rajasekharan 12 February 2025Constitutional law

The Supreme Court (SC), in Canara Bank v Ajithkumar G K [2025 INSC 184], says indigence of the dependants of the deceased employee is the fundamental condition to be satisfied under any scheme for appointment on compassionate ground.

SC will Decide Whether the Court can Modify the Arbitral Award u/s 34 of the A C Act

By K Rajasekharan 11 February 2025Civil law

The issue whether the Principal District Courts can modify arbitral awards under Section 34 and Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A C Act) has led to conflicting decision of the Supreme Court.

If the Appellant Accused dies the Imprisonment Abates but the Fine Survives

By K Rajasekharan 8 February 2025Criminal law

The Supreme Court (SC), in Ramesh (deceased) v The State of Kerala, says if the accused-appellant dies during the pendency of a criminal appeal against a composite sentence of imprisonment and fine, the appeal does not abate. The Section 394 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) deals with abatement of appeals.

In Service Matters, Approach Administrative Tribunal first but not HC

By K Rajasekharan 8 February 2025Constitutional law

The service matters concerning recruitment and service conditions of state employees, including suspension review, fall within exclusive jurisdiction of administrative tribunal, which must be approached first before directly seeking high courts intervention in such matters, says the High Court of Kerala in Sadiq M M v State of Kerala [2025:KER:251].

Party to a Case must Disclose the Relevancy of Evidence to the Court before Summoning a Witness

By K Rajasekharan 7 February 2025Civil law

Before summoning a witnesses to court in an ongoing civil suit, the party to the case has to disclose the relevancy of that particular piece of evidence with regard to the issues arising in the suit, says the Kerala High Court in Infant Jesus Church v Southern Law Chambers, [2024 KER 87181].

Comparing Signatures based on Photocopy is Sloppy

By K Rajasekharan 5 February 2025Evidence law

Comparing signatures based on photocopy, in the absence of an original document, is a “slippery slope” and should be done with great care and circumspection, says the Kerala High Court in M G Sreejith v M/s MSS Hospital & Nursing College Pvt Ltd & Another [2025:KER:5968].

Solatium & Interest Applicable to 1997 to 2015 NH Acquisition

By K Rajasekharan 5 February 2025Criminal law

The Supreme Court (SC), in Union of India & Another v Tarsem Singh & Others has declared Section 3J of the National Highways Act 1956, to the extent it excludes solatium and interest as per Land Acquisition Act 1894 to acquisitions done under the National Highways Act (NH Act), to be unconstitutional.

Holder of Power of Attorney can file Cheque Case

By K Rajasekharan 5 February 2025Negotiable Instruments

The power of attorney holder is competent to file a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act, even if knowledge is not stated in the complaint but is affirmed in the affidavit, says the High Court of Kerala (KCK) in G. Komalan, S/o. Late Gangadharan v Thomas Alexander, S/o. Eapen Thomas, (Represented by His Power Of Attorney Holder Sanil Thomas, S/o. Thomas) [2024 KER 95315].

Triple Test or the Golden Principles to be applied in Granting Injunctions

By K Rajasekharan 1 February 2025Civil law

The widely acknowledged Golden Principles, collectively known as the Triple-Test, are followed by the the courts in India as the pre-requisites before a party can be granted mandatory injunction, directing him to do or not to do a specific thing.

Govt’s Prior Sanction not needed in Prosecuting on Perjury u/s 340/195 CrPC

By K Rajasekharan 28 January 2025Criminal law

Prior sanction under Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is not needed to prosecute a public servant for perjury under Section 340 read with 195 of the CrPC, says the High Court of Kerala in K.K. Krishnan v State of Kerala and Others [2024/KER/12203].

Using Loudspeakers is not an Essential Religious Practice

By K Rajasekharan 26 January 2025Civil law

Using loudspeakers, for prayers or for reciting religious discourses, is not an essential part of any religion. Therefore, the Bombay High Court, in Jaago Nehru Nagar Residents Welfare Association v Commissioner of Police [2025:BHC-AS:3288-DB], ordered the Mumbai Police to strictly implement the Noise Pollution Rules, 2000 and ensure that no religious place creates noise pollution by using loudspeakers.

Illegal Past Promotions Cannot be a Ground for Further Promotion

By K Rajasekharan 26 January 2025Constitutional law

Illegal promotions granted in the past cannot serve as a basis for continuing illegal promotions, says the Supreme Court ( SC) in Jyostnamayee Mishra v The State of Odisha & Others [2025 INSC 87].