"I realise that some of my criticisms may be mistaken; but to refuse to criticize judgements for fear of being mistaken is to abandon criticism altogether... If any of my criticisms are found to be correct, the cause is served; and if any are found to be incorrect the very process of finding out my mistakes must lead to the discovery of the right reasons, or better reasons than I have been able to give, and the cause is served just as well."

-Mr. HM Seervai, Preface to the 1st ed., Constitutional Law of India.

Monday, November 17, 2008

SC Judgements

Prem Nath Motors Ltd. v. Anurag Mittal CIVIL APPEAL NO. of 2008 decided by Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA JJ. on November 14, 2008 wherein it was held:

Section 230 of the Contract Act categorically makes it clear that an agent is not liable for the acts of a disclosed principal subject to a contract to the contrary.

Komalam Amma v. Kumara Pillai Raghavan Pillai and Ors. CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2008 decided by Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA JJ. on November 14, 2008. It was held:
Maintenance, as we see it, necessarily must encompass a provision for residence. Maintenance is given so that the lady can live in the manner, more or less, to which she was accustomed. The concept of maintenance must, therefore, include provision for food and clothing and the like and take into account the basic need of a roof over the head. Provision for residence may be made either by giving a lump sum in money, or property in lieu thereof. It may also be made by providing, for the course of the lady`s life, a residence and money for other necessary expenditure. Where provision is made in this manner, by giving a life interest in property for the purposes of residence, that provision is made in lieu of a pre-existing right to maintenance and the Hindu lady acquires far more than the vestige of title which is deemed sufficient to attract Section 14 (1).

No comments: