VAKALATGIRI

In  Taj Mahal Hotel vs United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. , Supreme Court held that when it comes to valet parking, hotel owners can’t not simply use a paper tag stating “parking at owners’ risk” as a way to escape liability. The Supreme Court upheld an order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (‘National Commission’) to pay compensation of Rs 2.8 lakh to an individual whose Maruti Zen car was stolen in 1998 from its parking area holding that there was deficiency in services rendered by the hotel management. The hotel had argued that the valet parking ticket clearly states that the vehicle will be parked at the guest’s own risk and responsibility and that the management will not be responsible for any loss, theft or damage.  Bench of Justice Mohan Shantanagoudar and Justice Ajay Rastogi held that the    hotel-owner cannot contract out of liability for its negligence or that of its servants in respect of a vehicle of...

In Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil vs Hon’ble Speaker, Karnataka , Supreme Court    upheld    the disqualification of 17 Congress - JD(S) MLAs in Karnataka by the then Assembly Speaker K.R. Ramesh Kumar but allowed their plea to contest the by-election to be held on December 5 for the seats that fell vacant in July. A three-judge bench of justices NV Ramana, Sanjiv Khanna and Krishna Murari held that the Speaker does not have the power to indicate the duration for which a member may not contest elections after being disqualified or after resigning. FACTS OF THE CASE In July this year, Writ Petitions were filed by 17 ex-MLAs of Karnataka challenging their disqualification by the previous Speaker of the Assembly. The resignation of the 17 MLAs from the Congress and JD(S) parties eventually brought down the HD Kumaraswamy-led regime in Karnataka in July this year.  Speaker rejected the resignation of the members asserting that they were not voluntary or gen...

SUMMARY OF THE AYODHYA VERDICT The five-judge bench of the Supreme Court unanimously pronounced it's verdict on 9 November 2019.The judgement can be summarised as follows: The Court ordered the Government of India    to create a trust to build a temple and a Board of Trustees within three months. The disputed land will be owned by the Government of India and subsequently transferred to the Trust after it's formation. The Court ordered the entire disputed land area of 2.77 acres to be allocated for the construction of a temple while an alternative piece of land area of 5 acres be allocated to the Sunni Waqf Board for the construction of a mosque within Ayodhya. The Court ruled that the 2010 Allahabad High Court’s division of the disputed land was incorrect. The Court ruled that the Demolition of the Babri Majid and the 1949 desecration of the Babri Masjid was in violation of law. The Court observed that archaeological evidence from the Archaeological Survey ...

From the idol of Ram Lalla being found inside the mosque in December 1949 followed by the filing of the first couple of pleas in the matter to the eventual demolition of Babri Masjid on December 6, 1992, the Ayodhya dispute has long been a part of political discourse in the country, especially over the last three decades. TIMELINE OF EVENTS   1528-29 Babri Majid Constructed in Ayodhya by Mughal Emperor Babur’s commander Mir Baqi. 1885 Mahant Raghubir Das files a plea in the Faizabad district court, seeking to build a temple on land next to the mosque. Court rejects plea. December, 1949 Idol of Ram Lalla found inside the mosque. Hindus call it divine appearance; start offering prayers. Others say that it was smuggled in there. 1950 Suits filed in Faizabad Court by Gopal Singh Visharad and Paramahansa Ramachandra Das,seeking permission to worship the idols of Ram Lalla. 1959 Nirmohi Akhara files plea seeking possession of the disputed lan...

MEASURES FOR PREVENTION OF FATAL ACCIDENTS OF SMALL CHILDREN DUE TO THEIR FALLING INTO ABANDONED BORE WELLS AND TUBE WELLS In 2010, Supreme Court of India had issued the following directions when it came to the construction of bore wells and tube-wells :- (i) The owner of the land/premises, before taking any steps for constructing bore well/ tube well must inform in writing at least 15 days in advance to the concerned authorities in the area, i.e., District Collector/ District Magistrate/Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat/any other Statutory Authority/concerned officers of the Department of Ground Water/Public Health/ Municipal Corporation, as the case may be, about the construction of bore well/tube well. (ii) Registration of all the drilling agencies, namely, Government/Semi Government/Private etc. should be mandatory with the district administration/Statutory Authority wherever applicable.    (iii) Erection of signboard at the time of construction ne...

UNWORKABLE, EMOTIONALLY DEAD, BEYOND SALVAGE AND BROKEN DOWN   IRRETRIEVABLY   Bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice MR Shah has ordered dissolution of a marriage of a couple, living separately for 22 years and failing to reconcile their differences.  In    R. Srinivas Kumar vs R. Shametha, (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4696 OF 2013 ) Supreme Court dissolved the marriage under Article 142 of Indian Constitution.The court termed the marriage "unworkable, emotionally dead, beyond salvage and broken down irretrievably". The husband had filed an appeal in the Supreme court against the 2012 Andhra Pradesh High Court judgement, upholding the family court decision to refuse to pass a decree of divorce against the wife. The couple had got married in 1993, but later, a difference of opinion emerged, with the husband alleging that cruelty was meted out to him. Till 1997, for a majority of time, the wife stayed at her parental house. The husband filed a divor...

SECOND WIFE IS ALSO ENTITLED TO MAINTENANCE UNDER SECTION 125 OF Cr.P.C: SUPREME COURT A bench of Justice Banumathi and Justice Bopanna has recently refused to interfere in the High Court order granting maintenance to a second wife. In  T K Surendran vs P Najima Bindu, Supreme Court    stated and held "In view of the judgment of this Court reported in  2014(1) SCC 188 titled Badshah vs. Urmila Badshah Godse and Anr ., we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment affirming the award of maintenance to the respondent-wife. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed". Badshah vs. Urmila Badshah Godse and Anr. 2014(1)SCC 188  In Badshah vs Urmila Badshah Godse case the court ruled that a woman, duped into marrying a person who was already having a subsisting marriage, would not be affected by the Hindu Marriage Act and would be treated as a legally wedded wife for the purpose of claiming maintenance...