Know Your Rights!!

  The very recent judgements from the Karnataka and Bombay High Courts have left me thinking about the best way to handle family disputes over gift deeds. Both courts dealt with cases where parents transferred property through a gift deed to their children, hoping for care and support in return. However, the conclusions reached by the two courts were surprisingly different! The Karnataka High Court’s stand: Implied Obligations Matter Let’s start with the Karnataka High Court’s decision on July 29, 2024. In the case of Smt. Shoba v. Dr. Anil P. Kumar (Neutral Citation: 2024:KHC-K:5437) , a mother named Shobha transferred her property to her son, Dr. Anil P Kumar. She believed that he would take care of her in her old age. The gift deed didn’t specifically say he had to do so, but it was understood between them. However, things didn’t go as planned. Shobha felt that her son wasn’t keeping his promise. So, she went to court. Justice Suraj Govindaraj decided that even though the gift...

When I wrote the article about how a woman can outrage another woman's modesty (Link: Outraging Woman's Modesty - Equality in Gender  ) in December 2022, it highlighted how the law adapts to new social issues. A recent Bombay High Court judgment reinforces this by showing that outraging modesty can occur in both physical and digital spaces. In simple terms, an obscene or vulgar email can be seen as an insult to a woman’s modesty. Case Citation: Joseph Paul de Sousa v. The State & Ors. (CrWP 3480 of 2011, Bom) dated 21 st August 2024 Facts of the Case: Joseph Paul de Sousa (petitioner) and Ms Zinnia (respondent no. 2 – an 80-year-old widow), residents of a posh Mumbai cooperative society, had known each other since 1980. Tensions arose when de Sousa allegedly usurped the role of Chairman, previously held by Zinnia's elderly mother, without being elected. The dispute worsened when, on February 7, 2009, Zinnia received an email from de Sousa’s email ID which contained a...

If you're planning to sell a residential property that you've held for more than 24 months, you'll need to be aware of the recent changes introduced in the Union Budget 2024 regarding long-term capital gains (LTCG) tax. Here’s what you need to know, explained in simple terms. New Tax Rules on Property Sales 1. Reduced Tax Rate: The tax rate on long-term capital gains from selling a property has been reduced from 20% to 12.5%. This sounds like good news, right? But there’s a catch. 2. No More Indexation Benefit: Previously, we could adjust the purchase cost of the property for inflation, thanks to the indexation benefit. This adjustment helped reduce our taxable gains and, in turn, the tax we had to pay. But now, this benefit has been removed. 3. An Important Option: After hearing concerns from many, the government decided to offer some relief. Now, we can choose between two tax options: 12.5% tax rate without indexation 20% tax rate with indexation This choice is availab...

In what can only be described as a case of forum shopping (trying to find the friendliest court), an apartment owner in Shiv Vihar CHS, Dombivali (East), took his complaints on a legal tour. The petitioner, Vilas Gopal Dongare member of the society was unhappy. Why? Because his water supply was cut off. The reason? He had not paid his maintenance bills, which had piled up to a whopping Rs. 7 Lakhs! Despite making several complaints about the alleged harassment by the society and even a water tank causing structural issues in his building, his cries were heard and promptly dismissed. The Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission looked into his case and, on 05.02.2020, decided it was not a human rights violation. They said, “Pay your bills first.” The society initiated proceedings under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (MCS Act) to recover arrears and got a Recovery Certificate issued in its favour. When the petitioner’s appeal against this certificate wa...

As a lawyer, I've seen many cases of cheating and deception. Recently, I've been following news about the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) exam paper leak and an Indian Administrative Service (IAS) probationary officer falsely presenting herself as an Other Backward Classes (OBC) candidate for her Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) exam. These events made me think about which legal provisions would apply to such cases. Are these covered under the new Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS) (भारतीय न्याय संहिता), 2023, formerly the IPC (Indian Penal Code), 1860? Absolutely — they fall under the category of cheating… I explored the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita and found Section 318 (formerly Section 420 of IPC). It’s like the all-new “cheating watchdog” (pardon my chartered accountant lingo...) on duty, keeping a sharp lookout for tricksters and making sure they don’t slip through the cracks! What is Cheating? Section 318 of BNS defines cheating as: Deception: Tricking or deceivin...

Hello – "Can you hear me now?" or "Sorry, I missed that, could you repeat?" Call drops and poor signal strength are frustrating. So, when mobile towers started popping up on building terraces, many of us thought, "Finally, better reception!" But, have you ever wondered if these towers are safe? Let us see what happened in the Lake View Co-Operative Housing Society vs. The Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai & Ors (WP. 1382 of 2016)  case. The court tackled the heated debate by combining three other writ petitions (WP. 2152 of 2014, WP. 2800 of 2015, WP. 2060 of 2016) over mobile towers and their potential health risks. The case decided on January 23, 2019, revolved around whether these towers, known as Telecom Cell Sites/Base Stations (TCS/BS), should be allowed on building terraces given the concerns about electromagnetic fields (EMF) radiation.   Health vs. Connectivity In 2016, residents of Lake View Co-Operative Housing Society (the peti...

In the world of legal disputes, the lines between professional conduct and consumer rights sometimes blur, leading to landmark judgments. One such case involved Advocate M. Mathias, his client D.K. Gandhi, and a dishonoured cheque issued by Kamal Sharma. The Twists and Turns - Bar of Indian Lawyers v. D.K Gandhi & Anr. (SC) 2024 The case began when D.K. Gandhi hired Mathias to file a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act after Kamal Sharma's cheque for Rs.20,000 was dishonoured. Sharma agreed to provide a Demand Draft (DD) of Rs.20,000 and a cheque of Rs.5,000 for expenses. However, Mathias demanded Rs.5,000 in cash from Gandhi and filed a suit claiming this amount as his fee. He later handed Gandhi a DD for Rs.20,000 and a cheque for Rs.5,000, which Sharma stopped at Mathias's request. Gandhi then sought Rs.15,000 in compensation, including Rs.10,000 for mental agony, from the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Delhi.   Legal Battles: F...

  I prefer not to write about matrimonial disputes as they are incredibly personal and often filled with complex emotions. However, a recent case of Prateek Bansal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., Crl.A. No.-002167-002167 / 2024 stands out —not just for the personal drama but because it shows how the legal system can be misused, and that's something we should all care about. This case involves a Chartered Accountant from Hisar and his wife, a Deputy Superintendent of Police in Udaipur. They got engaged and married in 2015, but by October 2015, complaints were filed by the wife’s father first in Hisar and then in Udaipur, under similar allegations of cruelty. This led to multiple FIRs (First Information Reports) being filed. The matter escalated to the Rajasthan High Court, which decided not to dismiss the second FIR, stating that the police in Udaipur weren't aware of the first FIR filed in Hisar. This decision was challenged in the Supreme Court, which took a different view. ...

  Property disputes happen when people argue about claims of ownership and possession. Adverse possession is a legal idea often brought up in these disagreements. It means someone says they own the property because they've been using it for a long time, even if they didn't originally own it. Once more, the Supreme Court clarifies how adverse possession works and how it helps settle these arguments. The case revolves around a property dispute in Chennai, originally owned by Sungani Bai, who passed away in 1947. In 1945, Sungani Bai divided the property among three individuals using a registered settlement deed as she had no legal heirs. Subsequently, Radheshyamlal, the plaintiff in this case also the legal heir of one of the individuals who received a 1/3rd share of the property from the settlement deed, claims to have been in continuous possession of the property since 1950. Radheshyamlal filed a lawsuit seeking ownership declaration through adverse possession against both the ...

  I once read that "Every cheque tells a story of trust, accountability, and financial integrity." So, when I stumbled upon the case of K. Ramesh v. K. Kothandaraman SLP(Crl) 3377 of 2019 (Supreme Court) , it was intriguing to see how legal experts can dispute even the smallest details to support their clients. Surprisingly, the matter of the dispute in front of the Supreme Court was not on cheque bouncing; instead, the dispute centred around the age of the ink used for the signature on the cheque and the age of the signature and contents of the cheque. Let's explore how our highest court navigates through such intricacies in cheque disputes. As the case unfolded, the courts emphasized a key legal presumption outlined in Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, of 1881. According to this provision, when an individual signs a cheque and hands it over to the payee (receiver of a cheque), it is "presumed" that he is responsible for honouring the payment unl...