Judgment Analysis

Issue: The primary issue was whether a Muslim male in Maharashtra can register multiple marriages, including a third marriage, under The Maharashtra Regulation of Marriage Bureaus and Registration of Marriages Act, 1998, despite the Act’s general focus on a single marriage registration. Can the Registrar legally deny registration of the third marriage based on the […]

(Civil Appeal Nos. 9975-9976 of 2024) Parties : Appellant: A.B. Govardhan / Respondent: P. Ragothaman  Advocates on Record  : Mr. Narendra Kumar Counsel for the Appellant Mr. V. Prabhakar Counsel for the Respondent Hon’ble Judges/Bench : Ms. Justice Hima Kohli & Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah ISSUE The Supreme Court of India was tasked with the following

Issues: Can Vaibhav Motors be considered the owner of the offender vehicle, despite being a mere dealer of Hindustan Motors? Is Vaibhav Motors, along with Hindustan Motors, jointly responsible for compensating the victims of the accident? Do Clauses 3(b) and 4 of the Dealership Agreement formulated by Hindustan Motors help them escape the payment of

Name of the case: Ameya Arun Kulkarni Vs Isha Ameya Kulkarni[FCA No. 18 of 2024]  Parties: Appellant (Org. Respondent): Amey Arun KulkarniRespondent (Org. Petitioner): Isha Ameya Kulkarni Hon’ble Judges/Bench:  Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice SG Chapalgaonkar FACTS The case of Ameya Arun Kulkarni v. Isha Ameya Kulkarni centers on a marital dispute between the parties. The

ISSUE: The primary legal issue in this case is whether the applicant/wife is entitled to temporary custody of her minor female child, who was below five years of age at the relevant time, under Section 21 of the Domestic Violence Act (D.V. Act). RULE: The relevant legal provisions are: Section 21 of the Domestic Violence

ISSUE:  The issue in this case is whether the wife, Ruchi Majoo, is entitled to maintenance from her husband, Sanjeev Majoo. RULE: Wives who are unable to support themselves may receive maintenance payments under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in India. This clause aims to protect women from financial hardship and to

ISSUE:The primary issue in the case of Nachiket P Shirgaonkar versus Pandit Automotive is whether Pandit Automotive breached the contract by not delivering the vehicle as per the agreed terms, and if Nachiket P Shirgaonkar is entitled to remedies for this breach. Whether Pandit Automative was engaged in unfair trade practices and breached the consumer

BRIEF FACTS:   This case deals with Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 which covers the offence of Cheque Bouncing. The accused is Prana Educational And Charitable Trust Kochoth House and Sheeba Kochoth is the Managing Trustee. A cheque of Rs 9,50,000 was issued to the complainant by the accused which came to

INTRODUCTION Mary Roy, an educator and human rights activist who is the mother of renowned writer Arundhati Roy. She is the woman who conducted the legal battle and the apex court ruled in 1986 that women had equal rights in their father’s property. This was a landmark judgment that persuaded the right of Christian women

Name of the case: K. Narendra Vs.  Riviera Apartments (P) Ltd. 1999(5) SCC 77 Court: The Supreme Court of India Hon’ble Judges/Bench: S.V. Manohar and R.C. Lahoti, JJ. FACTS The plot of land in New Delhi, originally granted by the President of India to M/s Shiv Ram, Mahashaya Krishna, and K. Narendra (referred to as