Case Laws (Part-1)


This Article is mainly talks about main case laws of the week. Case laws is one kind of machine for law student, This machine help to student for clearing the concept of law.

Here In this article deals with Important Case Laws.

Case Title :  Shiv Kumar Vs Union of India

  • This Case Laws deals→ with the Law of Transfer of the Property.
  • In this case Supreme Court says that, “Power of the attorney in someone’s name not make him/her the owner of that particular property.
  • Also The Supreme court has state thatt ,”GPA sale and SA/GPA will trasfer is void and its does not constitute a transfer of ownership nor is it a valid way of transferring real estate.

For Read a Judgment→ Click Here

Case Title : Rajeshwary Vs State of Kerala

  • This Case Laws is mainly deals→ with Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
  • In this Case, Kerala high court state that, In case of Cheque bonus if convict pay fine directly to complainant then that case is closed.
  • The Kerala High Court observed that a convict in a cheques bounce case can pay the fine amount directly to the complainant. Further court stated It is not necessary to deposit the fine amount in court.

Case Title : Imtiaz Ali & Ors Vs Additional Commissioner Faizabad – 1, Mandal Ayodhya, Ayodhya & Others

  • Lawyers strike→ Bar members can meet to condole someone’s death→ but have no right to obstruct court→→ Allahabad High Court
  • The Allahabad High Court recently held that the members of the Bar are free to hold meetings to condole the death of any member or any other, but they do not have the right to obstruct the working of the courts.

Case Title : Nirmala Kothari Vs United India Insurance Company Limited

This case laws→ deals with →the Motor Vehicle Act.

  • Vehicle owner’s insurance claim cannot be denied just because the driver had a fake license: Supreme Court
  • “If the driver shows a license, which appears to be genuine, the employer cannot be expected to further verify the authenticity of the license, unless he sees cause for disbelief.”

Case Title : Mitesh Kumar J Shah v State of Karnataka

  • Not just breach of contract →fraud →criminalizing civil cases→ should be discouraged→→ Supreme Court
  • The Supreme Court has held that mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for fraud.
  • A bench of Justices S Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari  observed that for criminal prosecution, the principal component of a dishonest or fraudulent intent under sections 405, 419 and 420 has to be excluded.

Case Title : Doddamuniyappa vs Muniswamy & others.

  • This case a Laws is mainly deals→ with →the Hindu law
  • In this case court stated that, Joint family property sold by a coparcener without consent of other coparceners. If the said property is re-conveyed back to joint family or the coparcener, the property re-acquires joint family property status. All coparceners including those who are born subsequently would get right.


This are important case laws with easy explanation.

Share This Content
Legal Library Tags:, , , ,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *