Know Your Rights

17/09/2026

14/09/2026

Elections 2026 Bar Associaton(Rajpura)

Congratulations to winning Candidates 👏🏻

26/07/2026

09/07/2026

Sarabjit Singh Bajwa Vs. The Additional Secretary, Home Affairs and Justice Department, Punjab Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh and Others.
RSA No. 2213 of 2026 (0&M). D/d.01.07.2026.
After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and having gone through the paper-book / records, I am unable to find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff.
10. It is not disputed that on the application of Smt. Parkash Kaur, mother of the deceased-Constable Manjit Singh, family pension earlier sanctioned in favour of Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur (wife of the deceased) was stopped upon her remarriage as per the Punjab Civil Service Rules.
To prove his claim, the appellant-plaintiff himself appeared into the witness box as PW-2. In cross-examination, the appellant-plaintifi admitted that relationship of brother does not fall under the purview of family’s pension. He further admitted that he had not given any succession certificate and his application for recruitment in Punjab Police under PLI Scheme was rejected and he was informed accordingly.
Further, as per Family Pension Scheme as per Rule 6.17(3) of Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume-II, wife and minor children are classified as Class-I legal heirs in death case, whereas mother and brother are not included therein. Besides it, as per Rule 6.16(B) of Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume-Il, brother does not fall under the definition of “family”. Therefore, no pension or other benefits were released to the mother and brother of the deceased, particularly considering that even succession certificate of the deceased
was granted in favour of his widow Sukhwinder Kaur and mother Parkash Kaur; not in favour of appellant-plaintiff.
finding no illegality or perversity with the findings of the fact recorded by both the Courts below, there being no misreading or any misinterpretation of the pleadings and the evidence available on record; the present appeal being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed.

09/07/2026

09/07/2026

Vinesh alias Vinesh Soni Vs. State of Punjab & ors. CRM-M-35020 of 2026 (O & M)d/o.8.7.2026

During the pendency of the trial, the petitioner expressed his willingness to amicably settle the dispute. Accordingly, he moved an application dated 23.01.2026
seeking permission to compound the offence and simultaneously deposited the entire cheque amount of Rs.2,00,000/- by way of an original demand draft in favour of the complainant, which was annexed along with the application. The complainant opposed the application by asserting that the petitioner’s overall liability was Rs.8,50,000/- and not merely the amount covered by the two dishonoured cheques. Relying upon this objection, the learned trial Court dismissed the petitioner’s application vide impugned order dated 24.03.2026, holding that no full and final settlement had been arrived at between the parties. Aggrieved against the said order refusing compounding despite deposit of the entire cheque amount, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present petition.
The principal issue which arises
for determination before this Court is whether the offence under Section 138 of the N. I. Act can be permitted to be compounded at the instance of the accused in the absence of consent of the complainant or not?
The undisputed position which emerges from the record is that the petitioner sought compounding of the offence under Section 138 of the N. I. Act solely on the basis of his willingness to deposit the cheque amount of Rs.2,00,000/- by way of a demand draft. However, the respondent-complainant categorically opposed the said prayer by asserting that the parties had not arrived at any full and final settlement and that the petitioner’s overall liability extended beyond the amount covered by the dishonoured cheques.
Thus, the essential ingredient of mutual consent, which forms the very foundation of
compounding, was admittedly absent.
“compounding” and
“quashing” operate in distinct fields. In the absence of such consent, no direction for compounding can be issued by the Court merely because the accused has expressed willingness to pay the cheque amount.

01/07/2026

The Gujarat High Court has held that under Hindu Marriage Act, a marriage is only considered valid if the essential rites and ceremonies including Saptapadi (seven steps) are performed by the couple, adding that registration of the marriage does not by itself make a marriage valid if the essential ceremonies have not been performed.
The Court held, it said that the relationship between the parties never required the legal status of the husband and wife and any doc., Human or registeration that purports to certify such a non-existence.
Marriage can not confer upon the parties a status that can arise only from a solemnised hindu marriage. It also noted that man’s contention that he was residing in the United kingdom and was never informed about the alleged marriage and that there has been no cohabitation between the parties at any point of time. The court set aside the family court’s order and held that the alleged marriage between the parties is declared as null and void ab initio.

Case Title: Kaushal Pramodbhai Sonar v. Khushi Sanjay Shah
Judgement linkhttps://images.assettype.com/barandbench/2026-06-30/z3qd7u84/Kaushal_Pramodbhai_Sonar_v__Khushi_Sanjay_Shah.pdf

❤

30/06/2026

Case : The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v Kalu Ram

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 643

A Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria made the observation while dismissing an appeal filed by the Oriental Insurance Company challenging compensation awarded to the parents of a 20-year-old Chartered Accountancy student who died in a road accident in Delhi in 2013.

“The loss suffered by the parents of the deceased cannot be measured with arithmetical precision, and the compensation awarded, viewed holistically, cannot be said to transgress the bounds of ‘just compensation’ under the MV Act,” the Court observed.

The deceased, Akash Kumar, was pursuing CA (Final) and undergoing articleship when the car in which he was travelling collided with a truck parked on a Delhi road at around 3 a.m. The claimants contended that the truck had been stationed without parking lights, reflectors or warning signs, making it invisible in the darkness.
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held the truck driver negligent and awarded compensation of ₹81.21 lakh. The Delhi High Court affirmed the award. Both the insurer and the claimants approached the Supreme Court, the insurer seeking reduction of compensation and the claimants seeking enhancement.
The Bench observed that the case involved the death of a young student standing at the threshold of a promising professional career and that the law’s attempt to award compensation was ultimately aimed at providing a measure of solace to those who suffered an irreparable loss.

“The life of a young individual and the loss suffered by his family cannot be measured in precise monetary terms, and the determination of ‘just compensation’ under the MV Act does not admit of mathematical exactitude,” the Court said.
Accordingly, the Court enhanced the compensation from ₹81.21 lakh to ₹82.01 lakh, together with interest at the rate awarded by the Tribunal, and directed the insurer to deposit the enhanced amount within four weeks.

16/06/2026

Bar Council of India will conduct the 24th qualifying examination for Indian nationals holding foreign law degrees from July 15 to July 21, 2026.
The last date for submitting the application form, duly signed and scanned with self-attested copies of all documents, is June 25.