The Delhi High Court held a husband cannot rely on wife’s inherited property or family gifts to oppose maintenance, stressing her earning capacity. It said, “stridhan or inherited property cannot be treated as income to defeat her claim.”
In response to a Supreme Court ruling, banks are seeking clarification on loan sanctions against properties without completion and occupancy certificates. This impacts older and ancestral buildings as many lack these documents. The ruling complicates lending for properties under construction, prompting banks to explore legal options for compliance and clarity in their lending practices.
The Supreme Court of India overturned a Madhya Pradesh High Court ruling, reinforcing the protective intent of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The Court ruled that senior citizens can reclaim property transferred under the condition of care if the transferee fails to provide support. This decision came in a case where an elderly woman, Urmila Dixit, alleged neglect after gifting property to her son, leading to the deed’s cancellation. The Court emphasized the Act’s purpose of safeguarding senior citizens’ rights, ensuring speedy and effective remedies for their protection.
The Supreme Court of India ruled that no person can be deprived of their property without adequate compensation as per the law, reaffirming the constitutional right under Article 300-A. The case involved appellants whose residential plots were acquired for the Bengaluru-Mysuru Infrastructure Corridor Project but were denied compensation for 22 years due to delays by the state and KIADB. The Court criticized this injustice, stating that compensation based on outdated market rates would mock constitutional provisions. Exercising its powers under Article 142, the Court directed a revised market value calculation and quashed the lower court’s judgment.
The Indian government clarified that it will not legislate to require Supreme Court and high court judges to declare their assets, despite a parliamentary recommendation. Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal highlighted the existing “Restatement of Values of Judicial Life” and voluntary disclosures by judges as sufficient for maintaining transparency without compromising judicial autonomy.
In a ruling on Wednesday(13th Nov), the Supreme Court emphasized that the Executive cannot replace the Judiciary and the law should not prejudge an accused’s guilt, notably in response to petitions against “bulldozer actions” in which the properties of alleged offenders are demolished by state authorities.
Sub Registrars cannot refuse to register a property transfer document merely because of non production of either the original parent document of the property or a non traceable certificate from the police if the parent document had been lost, the Madras High Court has held. Justices R. Subramanian and R. Sakthivel hold that even non traceable certificate from the police need not be submitted if the original document had been lost.