IndianLawLive
How to Subscribe Free
- Go to bottom of this page.
- Write Your Email Address in the column and Click the button “Subscribe”.
How to add ‘IndianLawLive‘ to Home Screen of Your Mobile Phone?
- 1. Click on the three DOTS (…) on the Right-Side Top of this Page.
- 2. Click “Add to Home Screen”.
How to Find an Article in ‘IndianLawLive’?
- In Google-Search, give (i) the “required word” or “phrase” and also (ii) “Koduvath” – in Quotation marks ( “………” “Koduvath” ).
- Contact: (+) 9400230025
Contours of ‘Bona Fide Requirement’ in Recovery Proceedings under Rent Control Enactments
Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam. The Supreme Court of India examined the contours of ‘bona fide requirement’, in Recovery Proceedings under Rent Control Enactments, in Madan Mohan v. Thakar Dass, July 21, 2026, 2026 INSC 730 (Sanjay Karol, Augustine George Masih, JJ.), as under:
In Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2026:KER:19290), it is Held: No Findings on Title in the Previous Decision – Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 2018 (2) KLT 369
Taken from: Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam. Introduction The High Court of Kerala, in Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. v. State of Kerala and others (Anil K. Narendran & S. Muralee Krishna, JJ.), discussed, inter alia, on 5th March 2026 (2026:KER:19290), the following with respect to the payment of Land Tax by the petitioner, Harrisons Malayalam Ltd.: Contention…
Title Deed Lost and Certified Copy Unavailable: The Law Does Not Leave the Owner Without a Remedy
Taken from: Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam. Other Secondary Evidence Admissible Even if Regn. Copy Destroyed The Madras High Court recognised that where both the original title deed and the registration copy maintained by the registering authority have perished, the law does not fail merely because a certified copy cannot be produced. In Kottaichamy v. Kannan…
Right to Property: A Constitutional and Human Right That Cannot Be Taken Away on Mere Technical Grounds of Delay or the Fault of Public Authorities
Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam. Abstract Article 300A is a constitutional safeguard against unlawful State action against Right to Property of citizens. That is, Article 300A is a limitation on the State’s power of Eminent Domain. Contents in a Nutshell There being a Constitutional Guarantee protecting property against arbitrary State action, there will be – The March of Law The Constitution…
Tharammel Peethambaran vs T. Ushakrishnan, AIR 2026 SC 938: A Classic Decision on Secondary Evidence
Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam. Points Decided in this Decision Read Similar Articles•• Secondary Evidence of Documents & Objections to Admissibility – How & When?•• Contents of a Document are to be Proved in Court by Producing Original or Secondary Evidence•• Newspaper Reports are ‘Hearsay Secondary Evidence’•• Proof of Documents & Objections To Admissibility – How & When?•• Admissibility, Substantive Evidence and Probative Value – General Principles•• Modes of…
Jaspal Singh v. Ashwani Kumar: Earnest Money Refund Clause Does Not Bar Specific Performance unless it is a Substitute for Sale
Contents in a Nutshell Jaspal Singh v. Ashwani Kumar, 2026 INSC 700 The Supreme Court, in Jaspal Singh v. Ashwani Kumar, 2026 INSC 700 (Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Alok Aradhe), held that existence of a clause for refund of earnest money does not, by itself, bar specific performance, unless the contract clearly shows an…
Venkatesha v. KM Venkatamuniyappa: A Rectification Deed Cannot, in the Guise of Correcting an Error, Substitute the Very Subject Matter
Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam. Findings of the Apex Court in a Nutshell The Supreme Court (Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi) held in Venkatesha v. K.M. Venkatamuniyappa, 2026 INSC 705, held the following: Fact-Summary of the Case Legal Principles Applied by the Apex Court 1. Rectification Deed: Intention must be to correct a…
“Notwithstanding Anything Contained in this Adhiniyam” in Section 63(1) of the BSA—Do Indian Courts Fail to Properly Read and Interpret this Non Obstante Clause?
A Debate. PART I Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam. (The View of the Supreme Court of India) Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1: AIR 2020 SC 4908, holds the field on Law on Electronic Evidence. It was rendered on a reference to a three-Judge Bench History of Reference The history of reference…
Law on Electronic Evidence In India under S. 61 – 63 of the BSA
Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam. Contents in a Nutshell•• • 1. Sec. 63 BSA: Status of Copy (computer output) is raised to Original•• • 2. Thereby, the admissibility of such a copy is not subject to S. 58 (recognised forms of secondary evidence) & S. 60 (when secondary evidence is admissible). •• • 3. S. 63…
A Defective Legislative Piece as regards Documents “Admitted in Writing” in the (Old) Evidence Act is Corrected in S. 58 of the BSA
Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam. Abstract The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, removes the anomaly that existed under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. By expressly recognising “written admissions” as a distinct category of secondary evidence in Section 58, it makes the written admission referred to in Section 60(b) itself (e.g., “copy enclosed”) admissible as secondary evidence. Accordingly, where…
Something went wrong. Please refresh the page and/or try again.
Follow My Blog
Get new content delivered directly to your inbox.
Saji Koduvath Associates 