Keeping Pace with Legal Change
The current paper discusses an important case of the Supreme Court of India SUHAGRANI AND OTHERS versus MANAGER CHOLAMANDALAM MS…
According to a decision by the Supreme Court, the legal heirs can not demand insurance in case of death caused by rash driving of the deceased. This choice solidifies individual responsibility, blocks the possibility of generating revenue out of a wrong as well as encourages responsible driving, which affects the insurance policy holders and the scrutiny of insurance claims, as well.
In G Nagarathna Vs. G Manjunatha, the Supreme Court held that legal heirs of a driver who died as a result of his own rash and negligent driving could not claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. The Court confirmed orders of the Tribunal and Karnataka High Court, placing reliance upon precedents which rule out the possibility of one deriving benefit from one’s own wrong. The ruling makes it clear that insurance firms are not responsible in such situations and supports fundamental tort law and public policy tenets.
Hyderabad: A direction was issued by the Telangana High Court to Hyderabad district collector to compensate the legal heirs of a petitioner, whose land was acquired illegally under the Urban Land Ceiling Act. The court stressed the significance of consistency with previous holdings to maintain the authority of the judiciary.
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission upheld a Rs. 3.5 lakh compensation against Dr. Lal Path Labs. The ruling holds the lab liable for “deficiency in service” due to “grossly erroneous” test results that caused distress and unnecessary hospitalization. The judgment reinforces accountability for diagnostic errors.
The given article examines an important judgement of the Orissa High Court on the matter of the unlawful destruction of a communal building, and points to how the court admonished the disregard of procedure and an abuse of authority by the executive particularly closely. Cruciality of following guideline by Supreme Court on demolition, protection of constitutional right of people and getting confidence of people in governance has been stressed by the ruling. It is a grave cautioning that the action taken by the state can never be out of line with the postulates of natural justice and the rule of law.
This article is an abstract of a Supreme Court case based on which the liberty of an individual had to be delayed due to a minor technicality in a release order. It reviews the vigorous reproach of such developments expressed in the judgment of the Aglo/Buhari case: the principle of substance over form in the judicial order, and strong consequences for the protection of the fundamental rights. The case stresses the importance of the judiciary in aspects of timely execution of orders of release and responsibility for negligence of duty.
The proposed Karnataka Crowd Control Bill, 2025 would give district magistrates broad discretion to control or dissolve gatherings of more than 500 people, impose up to three years’ imprisonment and large fines on gathering organisers, require payment for deaths caused by a stampede, and call for official training and public education.
The Supreme Court set aside the rejection of Maharana Pratap Singh on basis of denial of due process, broad allegations and absence of fair inquiry. It gave rewards to compensation, stating that the, due process, and following natural justice is an imperative in departmental exercises of discipline.
In April 22, 2025, in a landmark case, the Supreme Court observed medical negligence conviction against Kamieni Hospitals but downsized the monetary award to 10 lakhs instead of 15 lakhs which struck balance between culpability of medical institutions and reasonable recompense to sufferers, a family.
