How to Prove a Will? SC Guidelines
In proving a will, the Supreme Court(SC) has issued eight guidelines in Shivakumar and Others v Sharanabasappa and Others ( AIR 2020 SC 3102) to be followed by the courts.
Distinctions between Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution
The distinctions between Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India have been clearly spelt out in the three-member Bench judgement of the Supreme Court (SC) in Radhey Shyam v Chhabi Nath. The SC, based on some survey, found that the distinction between the two jurisdictions stands almost obliterated in practice.
Use of Documents under RTI as Evidence in Courts
The Section 65 (f) of the IEA allows certified copies permitted under the IEA or by any other law in force in India to be treated as secondary evidence. The RTI Act falls within the ambit of "any other law in force in India.”
Therefore the certified copies obtained through the RTI Act can be treated as secondary evidence and can be admitted in court and they can be presumed to be true, unlike a private document.
Proving a Will when Attesting Witness is not Found
An instrument, such as a Will, mortgage deed, or gift deed, which needs to be compulsory attested as per law, shall not be used in evidence, unless one attesting witness has been called to the court for proving its execution, if the attesting witness is alive, living with in the sphere of the process of the court, and can give evidence, under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA).
How can Signature & Handwriting be Proved?
The signature and handwriting of a person can be proved in the court by different ways depending on the facts of each case, as per the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1882 (IEA)
A Magistrate has Five Options on Receipt of a Private Complaint
Five options available to a competent Judicial Magistrate on receipt of a written complaint, as elaborated in Biju Purushothaman v State of Kerala & Others, and reaffirmed in Manimekhala S v State of Kerala, are outlined in this write-up.
No Need to Register Corruption Case in all Cases of Malfeasance
A prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA) need not be initiated In all cases of malfeasance or misfeasance, or wrong administration, or in all cases of loss caused to the government while discharging duty by public servants, says the High court of Kerala in Manimekhala S v State of Kerala.
VACB can Investigate Cases against Central Employees
The Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) of Kerala State, has authority to investigate offences involving corruption that take place within the State, committed by a Central Government employee or a State Government employee, says the High Court of Kerala (HCK) in State of Kerala v Navaneeth Krishnan
Removal of Public Nuisance by District Magistrate
In urgent cases of imminent danger to property and consequent public nuisance, the District Magistrate (DM) or a Sub-Divisional Magistrate or any Executive Magistrate can exercise a ready procedure and issue a conditional order to remove public nuisance or such activities, under Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CRPC).
Withdrawal from Marriage not Amount to Cheating
Non-performance of an already decided marriage by the accused after booking the hall for its performance, does not amount to committing an offence of cheating, says the Supreme Court (SC) in Raju Krishna Shedbalkar v State of Karnataka & Another.