This judgment clarifies the limits of review jurisdiction under Section 114 and Order 47 of the CPC, reminding us that review is not an appeal in disguise. The Court emphasized that review powers exist only to correct manifest errors, not to reconsider facts already settled. #CoparcenaryRiights #ReviewJurisdiction #CPC #PartitionLaw #SupremeCourt

This judgement outlines an appeal regarding a widowed daughter-in-law's right to maintenance from her deceased father-in-law's estate under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA). The appellant, Geeta Sharma, challenged a Family Court's decision that her petition was non-maintainable. The High Court of Delhi examined various sections of HAMA, including Section 19 (Maintenance of widowed daughter-in-law) and Section 21 (Dependants defined), to determine if a widowed daughter-in-law whose father-in-law pre-deceased her husband is entitled to maintenance from the coparcenary property of the father-in-law's estate. The court ultimately set aside the impugned order, directing the Family Court to expeditiously dispose of the application, emphasizing a broad interpretation of HAMA as a social welfare legislation.

The court clarified that under Section 7(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, an arbitration agreement binds parties even if the contract is unsigned, if conduct shows clear acceptance. Don’t miss how the judgment empowers commercial dealmakers and how evidence of performance trumps missing signatures in court. #ArbitrationLaw #ContractLaw #SupremeCourt

How retrospective repeal of statutory bars can reshape property dispute outcomes? Supreme Court stressed the importance of conduct and timely objections under CPC and Land Reforms Act, holding that once statutory bars under Sections 79A, 79B, 79C are retrospectively repealed, objections lose significance. The Court upheld fair auction and survey for precise property boundaries, discouraging misuse of litigation to harass genuine auction purchasers. #PropertyLaw #CPC #CivilProcedure #SupremeCourt

The Supreme Court clarified the liability of insurers by relying on definitions under the Motor Vehicles Act. It established that “contract carriage” vehicles, insured to carry passengers, cannot be treated as goods vehicles—putting the onus squarely on the insurance company to pay claims unless expressly excluded in the policy. This precedent redefines compensation rights and insurance responsibilities for utility vehicles. #SupremeCourt #MotorVehiclesAct #InsuranceCompany

Haseena & Ors. vs. United India Insurance co. Ltd. & Anr. 2025 INSC 1075 - Supreme Court explores how courts determine "direct causation" in motor accident claims. The bench emphasized that compensation for death requires clear medical and legal evidence linking the accident to the fatality, not just proximity in time. This judgment clarifies the standard of proof under the Motor Vehicles Act and sets vital precedent on evidentiary requirements for compensation. #MotorAccident #Section166 #Compensation #SupremeCourt

Supreme Court scrutinized the authenticity of a motor accident insurance claim involving Vanita and others against Shriram Insurance Company, testing the boundaries of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The case unravelled questions of belated FIRs, disputed eyewitness accounts, and possible collusion—showcasing the controversy that revolves around accident compensation claims. Ultimately, the Court emphasized the strict evidentiary standards required under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for insurance liability, making this appeal a striking lesson in legal procedure and claim verification. #MotorvehiclesAct #SupremeCourt

The Supreme Court delivers vital clarity on motor accident compensation, emphasising the distinction between “medical disability” and “functional disability” for determining loss of earning capacity under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923. The Court accepted medical evidence but assessed functional disability at 50%, and restored full medical expenses, including future prosthetic costs, setting a significant precedent for compensation calculations. #MotorAccidentLaw #SupremeCourt #CompensationLaw

Did you know deliberate acceptance locks your legal choices? The Supreme Court held that receiving and encashing compensation after signing a joint application cannot be later challenged. This case is a must-learn for understanding review limitations, finality of court orders, and the necessity of timely action under the Motor Vehicles Act. #SupremeCourt #MotorVehiclesAct

The ONGC arbitration case clarifies how contract clauses affect arbitral tribunals’ power to award interest under Section 31(7) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court emphasized that unless an agreement clearly prohibits “pendente lite” interest, arbitrators retain statutory power to award it. Learn how nuanced contract language and statutory interpretation can shape the outcome of commercial disputes. This principle can significantly impact drafting and enforcement of agreements in future arbitrations. #SupremeCourt #ArbitrationLaw #ContractingDrafting #Section31