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
Two (Apparently Diametrically Opposite) Views on Objections to the Mode of Proof of Documents
Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam. Two (Diametrically Opposite) Views on Raising Objection to Mode of Proof Crux of R.V.E. Venkatchalla Gounder v. Arulmighu Viswesaraswamy In R.V.E. Venkatchalla Gounder v. Arulmighu Viswesaraswamy and V.P. Temple, (2003) 8 SCC 752, held as under: Crux of Tharammel Peethambaran v. T. Ushakrishnan, AIR 2026 SC 938 1. Secondary evidence is NOT admissible – 2.…
Kannan v. Adisiva (2026) Requires Reconsideration: Section 465 CrPC Appears to Have Been Misread
Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam. Part 1 Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows: “465. Finding or sentence when reversible by reason of error, omission or irregularity — (1) Subject to the provisions hereinbefore contained, no finding, sentence or order passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction shall be reversed or altered by a Court…
Suit Dismissed for Default: No Appeal Lies—Only Restoration under Order IX Rule 13 CPC; If the Restoration Petition is Dismissed for Default, it too can be Restored
Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam. Legal Propositions in a Nutshell Restoration Petition Dismissed for Default. Application to restore it is akin to O 9, r 9 The Supreme Court, in Jaswant Singh v. Parkash Kaur, AIR 2017 SC 5275; 2018-12 SCC 249, held as under: Referring Jaswant Singh v. Parkash Kaur : AIR 2017 SC 5275,…
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 on the Fault of Public Authorities
Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam. Contents in a Nutshell The March of Law The Constitution as Enacted in 1950 Under the Constitution as originally enacted in 1950, the right to property was guaranteed by two provisions. These provisions enabled citizens to approach the Supreme Court directly under Article 32 for enforcement of their property rights. Right…
Tharammel Peethambaran v. T. Ushakrishnan (2026): A Classic Decision on Secondary Evidence
Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam. Two (Diametrically Opposite) Views on Raising Objection to Mode of Proof of Documents Crux of Tharammel Peethambaran v. T. Ushakrishnan, AIR 2026 SC 938 1. Secondary evidence is NOT admissible – 2. The court has an obligation to decide the question of admissibility before making it as a secondary evidence. Read Similar Articles•• Secondary Evidence of Documents & Objections…
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…
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 