Pon Ravanan Legal Consultants

13/07/2026

🚨 Lost Money in a Bank Cyber Fraud? This Bombay High Court Judgment Is a Big Win for Customers!

⚖️ Case: Subodh C. Korde v. Union of India & Ors.
🏛️ Bombay High Court
📄 W.P. No. 11990 of 2023
📅 Judgment: 06.04.2026
👩‍⚖️ Bench: Justice Bharati Dangre & Justice Manjusha Ajay Deshpande

📌 What happened?

A customer lost ₹38.04 lakhs in a SIM Swap Cyber Fraud within just 41 minutes. Even after immediately informing the bank, cyber police and the RBI Ombudsman, the bank refused to refund the amount.

⚖️ What did the Court hold?

✅ RBI's Zero Liability Guidelines are binding on banks.
✅ A private bank can also be proceeded against in a writ petition where RBI's regulatory framework is involved.
✅ Mere OTP-based transactions do not prove customer negligence.
✅ The burden is on the bank to prove negligence before denying a refund.

🏛️ Final Direction

The High Court directed HDFC Bank to refund ₹38.04 lakhs within 8 weeks, failing which it must pay 8% interest per annum.

💡 Why is this judgment important?

This is a significant precedent for victims of cyber fraud. It strengthens the protection available to honest bank customers and reminds banks that they must follow RBI's customer protection framework instead of simply rejecting claims.

Know your rights. Prompt reporting can make all the difference.

13/07/2026

Bank frauds. Relief to Victim customers.

05/06/2026

⚖️ Marriage Does Not End a Daughter's Rights: Supreme Court Reaffirms Gender Equality

04/06/2026

⚖️ Supreme Court Reaffirms: Marriage Does Not Sever a Daughter's Bond with Her Parental Family

In a significant judgment advancing gender equality, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that a married daughter cannot be denied welfare or compassionate benefits merely on the ground that she is married.

📌 Case Details
Civil Appeal No. 2852 of 2023
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 25610 of 2022)

📅 Judgment Date: 02.06.2026

👨‍⚖️ Bench: Justice K. Vinod Chandran Aradhe

📖 Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 705

Key Observations of the Supreme Court

The Court strongly rejected the outdated notion that a daughter's relationship with her parental family ends upon marriage and observed:

«"Marriage neither extinguishes the bond between a daughter and her parental family nor furnishes a valid basis to presume absence of dependency."»

The Court further held that:

✅ Dependency cannot be presumed or denied solely on the basis of marital status.

✅ Many married daughters continue to reside with, support, or remain dependent upon their parents.

✅ If a married son is not automatically excluded from welfare benefits, a married daughter cannot be treated differently.

✅ Such exclusion is founded upon gender stereotypes and is inconsistent with the constitutional principles of equality and dignity.

Holding of the Court

The Supreme Court held that marital status alone cannot be a valid ground to deny welfare, compassionate appointment, compassionate allotment, or similar benefits to a daughter.

Any rule or practice excluding married daughters solely because of marriage would be arbitrary, discriminatory, and contrary to Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India.

Impact of the Judgment

🌸 Strengthens gender justice and equality.

🌸 Removes discriminatory assumptions against married women.

🌸 Ensures equal access to welfare and compassionate benefit schemes.

🌸 Guides Government departments and public authorities in framing non-discriminatory policies.

🌸 Recognises that emotional, social and financial ties between a daughter and her parental family continue even after marriage.

This judgment is another important step towards ensuring that constitutional rights are not denied on the basis of outdated social stereotypes.

⚖️ Pon Ravanan Legal Consultants
Kallakurichi | Ulundurpet | Villupuram | Chennai

01/06/2026

28/05/2026

23/05/2026

22/05/2026

⚖️ SUPREME COURT ON CONTRACT JOBs

22/05/2026

⚖️ SUPREME COURT ON CONTRACT JOBS

📌 Lokendra Kumar Tiwari v. Indian Institute of Information Technology, Allahabad & Others
📌 Supreme Court of India
📌 Judgment dated: 13.05.2026

The Supreme Court has now clearly observed that:

👉 If regular vacancies exist,
👉 and recruitment is conducted like a regular selection process,

then appointing candidates only on contractual basis without valid reasons may be unconstitutional.

The Court observed that such arbitrary treatment may violate:
⚖️ Article 14 — Equality before Law
⚖️ Article 16 — Equal Opportunity in Public Employment.

For years, many institutions have:
📌 conducted exams/interviews for permanent posts,
but
📌 given only temporary or contract appointments.

The Court has now reminded that:
⚖️ public employment cannot become a system of insecurity, uncertainty and exploitation.

Contract employment may be necessary in genuine temporary situations.

But using “contract jobs” against permanent vacancies merely to avoid regular service benefits strikes at:
⚖️ equality,
⚖️ dignity of labour, and
⚖️ constitutional fairness.

📌 Why this judgment is significant?

Because today, many Government institutions, Universities and public authorities increasingly:
❗ conduct regular recruitment,
❗ collect application fees,
❗ hold competitive selection processes,
but ultimately provide only insecure contractual appointments.

This judgment sends a strong constitutional message that:
⚖️ permanent public vacancies cannot routinely be converted into unstable employment systems merely to deny regular service protections and benefits.

A powerful reminder that employment is not merely about giving work —
it is also about giving stability, dignity and equal treatment.