Plaintiff Not Required To Pay Court Fee Till Permission To Sue As An Indignant Person Under O.33 R.9 CPC Is Withdrawn: Uttarakhand High Court

The Uttarakhand High Court has held that unless permission granted to a plaintiff to sue as an indigent person is first withdrawn in accordance with Order XXXIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, no direction can be issued requiring the plaintiff to deposit court fee merely on the basis of an application seeking such a deposit. Observing that the defendants had not sought withdrawal of...

Eviction Under MHADA Act Not Automatic; Authority Must Examine Legality Of Dues Claimed By Housing Board: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that the Competent Authority under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act is empowered to examine whether the amount claimed by the Housing Board is "lawfully due" and is not confined merely to ordering eviction. The Court observed that an allottee who receives a tenement under a government quota is not exempt from payment of the price and other...

Delay In Filing Appeal Against Externment Under Chhattisgarh Public Security Act Can Be Condoned Under S. 5 Limitation Act: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has observed that a delay occurred in filing an appeal against an externment order under the Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. “…unless the statute expressly or by necessary implication excludes the operation of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the appellate authority (under the Adhiniyam) should...

Rajasthan High Court Criticizes State For Forming Panel To Examine Land Dispute Despite Final Adjudication By Revenue Court In 1978

The Rajasthan High Court has set aside an order of a single judge that relied upon the report of a fact-finding Commission that was constituted by the State Government despite the fact that the concerned matter had already attained finality in 1978, opining such reliance to be erroneous. The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Bipin Gupta further slammed...

Can State Minority Commission Pass Eviction Orders? Kerala High Court Answers

The Kerala High Court recently upheld the finding of a Single Bench on the point that the State Minority Commission cannot bypass the jurisdiction of a civil court and pass eviction orders. [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 345]The Division Bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K. was considering an appeal filed challenging a decision of the Single Judge that set aside an...

Motor Accident Claim | Loss Suffered By Parents Cannot Be Assessed With Arithmetical Precision: Supreme Court

The Court upheld Rs 82 lakh compensation for the parents over the death of their son, a CA student.

Registered Sale Deed Presumed Valid; Minor Discrepancy In Attestation Witness Details Won't Invalidate Execution : Supreme Court

Attestation is not a statutory requirement for a sale deed, the Court said.

Motor Accident Claim | Loss Of Right Leg Must Be Treated As 100% Functional Disability For Mason : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that the loss of a right leg above the knee must be treated as 100% functional disability in the case of a mason, observing that compensation in motor accident claims cannot be determined merely on the basis of the percentage of physical disability without considering its impact on the victim's livelihood.A Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V....

Interim Orders Shouldn't Inflict Disproportionate Hardship: Rajasthan High Court Allows Relocated Liquor Vend To Operate Pending Dispute

The Rajasthan High Court has reiterated that interim orders are meant to preserve equities between parties and should not inflict disproportionate hardship pending adjudication of a dispute. [2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 257]Making the observation, a Division Bench of Justice Farjand Ali and Justice Sunil Beniwal permitted a liquor shop licensee to continue operating from a relocated site approved by...

Assistant Charity Commissioner Cannot Interfere With Ongoing Trust Elections U/S 41A Of Maharashtra Public Trusts Act: High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that the power conferred under Section 41A of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, is limited to issuing directions for the proper administration of a public trust and does not extend to interfering with an ongoing election process. The Court observed that once the election process has commenced, the Assistant Charity Commissioner cannot invoke Section 41A...

[Goa Municipalities Act] Power To Remove Councillor Exclusively With Govt, Cannot Be Delegated To Director Of Municipality: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that the power to remove a Municipal Councillor under Section 44 of the Goa Municipalities Act, 1968, vests exclusively in the Government and cannot be exercised by the Director of Municipal Administration. The Court observed that the power under Section 44 is quasi-judicial in nature, as it entails adjudication of allegations of misconduct or disgraceful...

Specific Relief Act | Readiness Must Be Proved From Time For Agreement Execution & Not Just After Filing Suit : Supreme Court

The Court held that financial documents created long after the institution of the suit cannot establish readiness and willingness to perform the contract.