1. Manufacturer Not Liable for Dealer’s Fault Unless Manufacturer’s Knowledge is Proved in Cases Where Relationship is “Principal-to-Principal” Basis – states Supreme Court
A Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices UU Lalit, Hemant Gupta and Ravindra Bhat noted that a manufacturer will not be liable for the fault of the dealer, unless it is proved that the manufacturer was aware of the deficiency of the dealer, in cases where the relationship between them is on “principal-to-principal” basis. This was observed in the case titled as Tata Motors Ltd. Antonio Paulo Vaz and Anr.
2. SC Takes Objection to Petitioner Addressing Judges as “Your Honour”; States “We are not US Supreme Court or Magistrate”
An Apex Court bench headed by CJI SA Bobde took objection to a law student, who was appearing as a party-in-person, when he addressed the judges “Your Honour”.
3. Married Hindu Women Can Enter “Family Settlement” With Her Heirs on Parental Side: Apex Court
The Supreme Court, in the case of Khushi Ram v. Nawal Singh, noted that “family settlement” can be entered by a Hindu woman with her heirs o her parental side. The bench comprising of Justices Ashok Bhushan and R Subhash Reddy also held that consent decree passed in recognition of pre-existing rights under a family settlement does not require registration under the Registration Act.
4. Girl Is Not a Cattle, but a Living Independent Soul Having Rights; Can Exercise Her Discretion as Per Her Wishes: HP High Court on Inter-Caste Marriage
The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that a girl is not a cattle or non-living thing but a living independent soul having rights, and on attaining the age of discretion, to exercise her discretion according to her wishes. The Bench in the case titled as Sanjeev Kumar v. State of HP and Ors., also underlined that opposition to marriage for the difference of caste is the result of spiritual and religious ignorance.
5. Citizens Cannot be Put Behind Bars Simply Because They Disagree with State Policies: Delhi Court in Disha Ravi Bail Order
A Sessions Court in Delhi, while granting bail to 22-yearold climate activist Disha Ravi, also stated that “An aware and assertive citizenry, in contradistinction with an indifferent or docile citizenry, is indisputably a sign of a healthy and vibrant democracy”. The court also observed that the creation of a toolkit is not an offence.
6. Appellate Court Cannot Permit Production of Additional Evidence Unless and Until Procedure under Order XLI Rules 27 to 29 of CPC is Followed: Observes SC
The Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justices Ashok Bhushan, R Subhash Reddy and MR Shah observed that the parties to appeal cannot be permitted to lead additional evidence unless and until the procedure under Order XLI Rules 27, 28 and 29 are followed. The bench also stated that the appellate court is not justified to direct the court from whose decree the appeal is preferred or any other subordinate court, to take such evidence and to send it when taken to the Appellate Court. This observation was made in the case of HS Goutham v. Rama Murthy.
7. Salaries and Pensions are Rightful Entitlements of Government Employees and Appropriate Interest Must be Paid for Delayed Payment: SC
The Supreme Court, in the case titled as State of Andhra Pradesh v. Dinavahi Lakshmi Kameswari, observed that salaries and pensions are rightful entitlements of Government Employees, and that the Government which has delayed the payment of salaries and pensions should be directed to pay interest at an appropriate rate.
8. Wife Levelling Allegations Affecting Career and Reputation of Husband Amounts to Mental Cruelty as a Ground for Divorce: SC
The Supreme Court in the case of Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar observed that wife levelling allegations which affects the career and reputation of the husband is mental cruelty against him for the purpose of seeking divorce.
9. Charge of False Accusation u/s 211 of IPC Can be Made Against de facto Complainant and not Against Investigating Officer: Madras HC
A Single Bench of the Madras High Court held that an officer who conducted an investigation or filed a final report pursuant to filing of criminal complaint cannot be prosecuted under Section 211 of IPC for making false accusations, in case of acquittal of the accused. The Bench identified that such proceedings would interfere with the officer’s independence in conducting an investigation.
10. State has to Compensate Unforeseen Death/Injury in Government Hospital Even of There is No Medical Negligence: Madras HC
The High Court of Madras directed the State of Tamil Nadu to provide a compensation of Rs. 5 lacs to a Dalit Petitioner whose daughter died as a result of complications that arose after administration of anesthesia in a government hospital.