Best Advocate In Bathinda

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

Fake Driving Licence or Bus Overloading: Is the Insurer Liable? In New India Assurance Compan…

Supreme Court on Property Disputes: Agreement to Sell Does Not Confer Ownership In Rano Singh v. Gurbax Singh, 2026 INSC 1137, decided on 16 October 2026, the Supreme Court reiterated important principles concerning property ownership, limitation and civil suits. Key Legal Principles: * An agreement to sell does not, by itself, create ownership rights in immovable property. * Where the defendant raises a substantial cloud over the plaintiff’s title, a suit for possession alone may not be maintainable; appropriate declaratory relief may be necessary. * A claim may fail if the suit is barred by limitation. * A party’s own representations and conduct may attract estoppel and acquiescence. Legal Learning | Shri Ganpati Jurists Understanding property documents, limitation periods and the appropriate relief is essential in civil litigation. Case: Rano Singh v. Gurbax Singh, 2026 INSC 1137 (Supreme Court of India). This post is for general legal awareness and is not legal advice.

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

Supreme Court on Property Disputes: Agreement to Sell Does Not Confer Ownership In Rano Singh…

Supreme Court on Family Settlements and Gift Deeds In B. Anasuyamma v. B. Madhusudhan Reddy, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that a binding family settlement and a compromise decree recorded by the High Court cannot be ignored. The Court held that a person who had relinquished rights over disputed properties under a binding compromise could not validly execute a gift deed concerning those properties. Key Legal Principle: A person cannot transfer property by gift deed when they have no subsisting right, title or interest in it. Legal Learning | Shri Ganpati Jurists #SupremeCourt #FamilySettlement #PropertyLaw #GiftDeed #CivilLaw

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

Supreme Court on Family Settlements and Gift Deeds In B. Anasuyamma v. B. Madhusudhan Reddy ,…

Best Advocate in Bathinda

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

⚖️ Legal Learning | Shri Ganpati Jurists Can a Court Stay a Subsequent Suit Just Because Some…

⚖️ LEGAL LEARNING | INSURANCE LAW When does non-disclosure in an insurance proposal become suppression of a material fact? In Sayan Kundu v. New India Assurance Company Limited, the Calcutta High Court considered the repudiation of a personal accident insurance claim where the insured had failed to disclose earlier insurance policies. The e-proposal form specifically required details of previous policy numbers. Instead of disclosing the existing policies, the insured entered “0”. The Court held that: • Insurance contracts are governed by the principle of utmost good faith. • A proposer must disclose material information specifically sought in the proposal form. • Entering “0” is materially different from leaving a column blank. • Previous insurance coverage can constitute material information relevant to underwriting and assessment of risk. • An e-proposal authenticated through OTP can bind the insured despite the absence of a physical signature. • The principles applicable to a blank column, including those considered in Manmohan Nanda, were therefore distinguishable. Key Takeaway A false entry in a proposal form can have significantly different legal consequences from an unanswered/blank column. The case highlights the importance of carefully reviewing declarations made in electronic insurance proposals before accepting a policy. Shri Ganpati Jurists Legal Learning | Legal Research | Strategic Legal Support #InsuranceLaw #InsuranceClaims #CalcuttaHighCourt #LegalLearning #IndianLaw #InsuranceDisputes #LegalAwareness #Lawyers #ShriGanpatiJurists

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

⚖️ LEGAL LEARNING | INSURANCE LAW When does non-disclosure in an insurance proposal become su…

Best Advocate In Bathinda

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

GEETA BAI v. K. ARJUN SINGH — SUPREME COURT Hindu Succession Act, 1956 | Section 6 CPC | Ord…

Best Advocate in Bathinda

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

⚖️ SUPREME COURT | LEGAL LEARNING Sainaba v. State of Kerala The Supreme Court considered an…

Load More
That is All