Date of the Judgment: May 15, 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 706 Judges: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice K. Vinod Chandran When a tragic motor accident claims the life of a family’s breadwinner, the question of fair compensation becomes paramount. The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this issue in the case of Hansa Devi & Ors. […]
Date of the Judgment: May 15, 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 707 Judges: Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran When a person is severely injured in a motor vehicle accident, what is the extent of the insurance company’s responsibility? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a recent case, clarifying whether an insurer can be
Date of the Judgment: May 15, 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 708 Judges: Sudhanshu Dhulia, J., K. Vinod Chandran, J. Can a person be termed a ‘land grabber’ for merely possessing land purchased through a registered sale deed? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case involving a property dispute. The core
Date of the Judgment: May 13, 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 674 Judges: Sudhanshu Dhulia, J., K. Vinod Chandran, J. Can a person be convicted for assisting another in accumulating wealth disproportionate to their known income, even if that person is not a public servant? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in the
Introduction Date of the Judgment: May 13, 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 676 Judges: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice K. Vinod Chandran In a significant ruling concerning securities fraud, the Supreme Court of India addressed the question of whether funds withheld by a stock exchange should be released to a party under investigation. The case arose from
“`html Date of the Judgment: May 13, 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 673 Judges: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice K. Vinod Chandran Can a motor accident victim, rendered bedridden due to the negligence of their employer’s driver, receive enhanced compensation? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case, where a young man was
Introduction Date of the Judgment: May 13, 2025 The Supreme Court of India addressed the critical question of who qualifies as a ‘dependent’ and is thus eligible for compensation in motor vehicle accident claims. This issue often arises when assessing claims from married daughters and elderly parents of the deceased. The court, in this case,
Date of the Judgment: May 09, 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 655 Judges: Sudhanshu Dhulia, J., Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. Did the prosecution adequately prove that a public servant demanded and accepted a bribe? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent appeal, focusing on inconsistencies in witness testimonies and the overall reliability
Date of the Judgment: May 08, 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 649 Judges: Sudhanshu Dhulia, J., K. Vinod Chandran, J. In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India addressed a case where a wife filed a complaint against her husband and his family, alleging harassment and demand for dowry. The High Court of Allahabad had
Date of the Judgment: May 08, 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 648 Judges: Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India addressed the issue of fair compensation in motor accident claims, specifically focusing on a case involving grievous injuries and amputation. The court considered the adequacy of compensation
Date of the Judgment: May 07, 2025 The Supreme Court of India recently heard appeals concerning P. Nallammal and the State of Tamil Nadu, focusing on charges of corruption and abetment. The central question revolved around whether a wife could be held guilty of abetting her husband’s accumulation of disproportionate assets. Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and
Date of the Judgment: May 07, 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 641 Judges: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice K. Vinod Chandran In a case concerning a serious motor accident, the Supreme Court addressed the critical issue of determining just compensation for accident victims, particularly focusing on those who suffer permanent disabilities. The case involved an appellant who
