The Bombay High Court ruled that deducting Mediclaim amounts from medical expenses compensation is not permissible. The court emphasized that insurance payouts and compensation serve different legal purposes. It rejected an insurance company’s argument that medical costs were already covered under the policy. The ruling reinforces the rights of claimants to receive full medical compensation without deductions.
The Supreme Court directed the Uttarakhand government to pay Rs.1 crore compensation to the widow of a doctor who was shot dead while on duty in 2016. The court noted that despite approval from the chief secretary, the government failed to provide the initially promised Rs.50 lakh compensation. Taking a strong stance, the SC enhanced the amount and ordered immediate payment. The ruling highlights the importance of justice and state accountability.
The Supreme Court criticized former Punjab & Haryana High Court judge Justice Rekha Mittal for significantly reducing motor accident compensation. It restored the original Rs.29 lakh compensation set by the MACT, questioning why she had slashed it to just Rs.3 lakh. The bench noted that Justice Mittal had a pattern of lowering compensation in such cases.
The legal dispute between actors Dhanush and Nayanthara has reached a crucial stage, with the Madras High Court setting the final hearing date for April 9, 2025. The case revolves around Dhanush’s Rs. 10 crore lawsuit against Nayanthara for allegedly using behind-the-scenes footage from Naanum Rowdy Dhaan in her Netflix documentary without permission.
The Supreme Court ruled that a borrower does not qualify as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act if the loan is taken for profit-making purposes. A bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prashant Kumar Mishra made this observation while hearing an appeal by the Central Bank of India against a decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). The ruling clarifies the scope of consumer rights in financial transactions.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India has ruled that High Courts and Sessions Courts do not have the authority to order compensation while granting bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Manmohan clarified that the jurisdiction under Section 439 CrPC is strictly limited to deciding whether bail should be granted or refused during a trial. It does not extend to awarding compensation to an accused person.
India’s Central government has confirmed that it does not currently have plans to regulate third-party litigation funding. In response to a parliamentary question posed by Mohammed Nadimul Haque, a Rajya Sabha member from the Trinamool Congress, the government made it clear that it is not considering any regulatory framework to manage third-party funding of legal cases.