Bathinda Advocates Lawyers Bathinda

by VINEET MITTAL Shri Ganpati Jurists / Bathinda Lawyers/ Bathinda Advocates -

Legal Learning | Shri Ganpati Jurists Vinesh @ Vinesh Soni v. State of Punjab (Punjab & H…

Bathinda Advocates Lawyers Bathinda

by VINEET MITTAL Shri Ganpati Jurists / Bathinda Lawyers/ Bathinda Advocates -

Legal Learning | Shri Ganpati Jurists Amendment of Pleadings to Correct Property Description i…

Lawyers Bathinda Property Advocates Bathinda

by VINEET MITTAL Shri Ganpati Jurists / Bathinda Lawyers/ Bathinda Advocates -

⚖️  Bombay High Court | Legal Learning 🏛️  Ibrahim Babubhai Chokiya v. M/s. Westinrely Develo…

📚 Legal Learning | Shri Ganpati Jurists Can a Lawyer Settle Your Case Without Your Consent? The Supreme Court in Krishna Kumar Ojha v. Jitendra Chaudhary clarified an important legal principle: ✅ A compromise decree is valid only if: * It is in writing. * It is signed by the parties. * It is voluntarily accepted by them. ⚖️ A lawyer cannot enter into a compromise affecting a client’s substantial legal rights without the client’s express authority. Mere implied authority is not enough. Another Important Observation The Supreme Court also observed that: * Limitation law applies to the acts of parties, not to the actions of the Court. * Where fraud is alleged, the Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 151 CPC to secure the ends of justice, even if procedural irregularities exist. Key Takeaway: Your legal rights cannot be compromised without your informed consent. Courts have the power to prevent injustice, particularly where fraud is involved. Legal Learning by Shri Ganpati Jurists #LegalLearning #SupremeCourt #CivilProcedureCode #CPC #Order23Rule3 #Section151CPC #CompromiseDecree #Fraud #Justice #IndianLaw #Litigation #Advocate #LawStudents #LegalAwareness #ShriGanpatiJurists

by VINEET MITTAL Shri Ganpati Jurists / Bathinda Lawyers/ Bathinda Advocates -

Bathinda Advocates Lawyers Advocates  📚  Legal Learning | Shri Ganpati Jurists Can a Lawyer Se…

When a Instagram Account Disappears, It’s More Than Just a Social Media Problem A few days ago, a client walked into our office in distress. His Instagram account had been disabled after actions allegedly taken by a third party. Years of conversations, client messages, business enquiries, and ongoing deals had suddenly become inaccessible. To him, it felt as though a major part of his business had disappeared overnight. For many creators, influencers, and businesses, a social media account is no longer just a profile—it is a valuable business asset. There have been increasing reports of bad actors abusing platform reporting systems, including false copyright complaints or impersonation, which can sometimes lead to accounts being restricted or disabled. While platforms have procedures for reviewing such actions, the consequences of an incorrect or malicious report can be severe. Many users believe that paying for premium services, such as verification, guarantees protection. Unfortunately, verification does not necessarily prevent an account from being suspended or disabled. From a legal perspective, users should remember: • Preserve all emails, notices, and screenshots immediately. • Do not panic or rely solely on automated customer support. • If the issue involves an incorrect copyright claim, a legally compliant counter-notification may be available under applicable copyright procedures, depending on the circumstances. • Where the account has significant commercial value, legal remedies may also need to be explored based on the facts of the case. An Instagram account may contain years of business relationships, customer trust, and commercial goodwill. Losing access can result in financial losses that extend far beyond social media. If your digital business depends on online platforms, treat your accounts with the same seriousness as any other business asset. Prevention, proper documentation, and timely legal advice can make a significant difference. Digital rights are becoming an important part of modern legal practice—and protecting them is increasingly essential. #CreatorEconomy #InfluencerLawyer #MetaVerified #CopyrightInfringement. #InstagramDisabled

by VINEET MITTAL Shri Ganpati Jurists / Bathinda Lawyers/ Bathinda Advocates -

Bathinda Lawyers Advocates Bathinda  When a Instagram Account Disappears, It’s More Than Just a…

Legal Learning | Shri Ganpati Jurists It is often argued that beneficial laws are sometimes invoked even where the legal requirements are not satisfied. This judgment is a reminder. Every law is enacted to protect genuine rights—but its protection must remain within the boundaries set by law. Senior Citizens Who Can Maintain Themselves Are Not Entitled to Maintenance Under the 2007 Act Case: Kusal Roy v. State of West Bengal (Calcutta High Court) The Calcutta High Court held that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is intended to protect senior citizens who are unable to maintain themselves. Where parents are financially self-sufficient, they cannot claim monetary maintenance under the Act. Key Takeaways: 1. Financial Self-Sufficiency Bars Maintenance Claim
If senior citizens have sufficient financial resources to maintain themselves, they are not entitled to maintenance under Sections 4, 5, and 9 of the Act. Accordingly, the order directing payment of ₹10,000 per month as maintenance was set aside. 2. Moral Duty of Children Continues
Although there may be no statutory obligation to provide financial maintenance in such cases, children continue to have a moral responsibility to ensure that their aged parents receive proper care, medical treatment, and dignity in old age. Legal Principle The right to maintenance under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 depends upon the parent’s inability to maintain themselves. Financial independence excludes the statutory claim, but not the moral obligation of children to care for their parents. #LegalLearning #SeniorCitizensAct #MaintenanceLaw #CalcuttaHighCourt #IndianLaw #FamilyLaw #ShriGanpatiJurists

by VINEET MITTAL Shri Ganpati Jurists / Bathinda Lawyers/ Bathinda Advocates -

Legal Learning | Shri Ganpati Jurists It is often argued that beneficial laws are sometimes in…

Homemakers Are Not “Non-Earning Members” – They Are Nation Builders In Shishu Pal @ Shish Ram v. Surjeet, the Supreme Court of India reaffirmed that the contribution of a homemaker cannot be measured merely through monetary income. The Court observed that homemakers perform multiple roles—caregiver, manager, educator, emotional support system, and household administrator. Their work forms the foundation of family welfare and, consequently, the social fabric of the nation. Recognizing the limitations of assessing compensation solely on notional income, the Court introduced the concept of “Loss of Domestic Care” while determining compensation in motor accident claims involving the death of a homemaker. Key Observations ✔ Homemakers are essential contributors to family and society. ✔ Their contribution extends beyond economic value and includes emotional, managerial, and caregiving support. ✔ Compensation in motor accident claims must reflect the true loss suffered by dependents. ✔ The value of unpaid domestic work deserves meaningful recognition within the legal system. ✔ The Court emphasized the need to acknowledge homemakers as “Nation Builders” because of their indispensable role in nurturing families and communities. This judgment is a significant step toward recognizing the dignity, value, and societal importance of unpaid domestic work, while ensuring a more just and equitable approach to compensation under motor accident laws. Shri Ganpati Jurists – Legal Learning #SupremeCourt #MotorVehiclesAct #MotorAccidentClaims #Homemakers #NationBuilders #LegalAwareness #IndianLaw #LegalEducation #ShriGanpatiJurists

by VINEET MITTAL Shri Ganpati Jurists / Bathinda Lawyers/ Bathinda Advocates -

Homemakers Are Not “Non-Earning Members” – They Are Nation Builders In Shishu Pal @ Shish Ram…

Load More
That is All