2020 Case Law[ Jan-June]
- 2020 APEX COURT  – Suit for partition among Muslims – whether the property is available for partition despite of gift deed infavour of one person – in terms of the principles of Mohammedan Law a gift made through marz ul maut cannot take effect beyond the 1/3rd of his estate after payment of funeral expenses and debts unless the heirs of the donor give their consent after the death of the donor.
- 2020 APEX COURT -Habeas Corpus – High court granted visitation rights at legal service authority office – Apex court held that When a court grants visitation rights, these rights should be granted in such a way that the child and the parent who is granted visitation right, can meet in an atmosphere where they can be like parent and child and this atmosphere can definitely not be found in the office of District Legal Services Authority. That atmosphere may be found in the home of the parent or in a park or a restaurant or any other place where the child and the parent are comfortable.The appellant wife is at liberty to move the appropriate court for custody of the child under the Guardians and Wards Act 1890
- 2020 APEX COURT [3 ] – Whether the gift deed in question met with the requirement of Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. – When the gift deed is not an ONEROUS GIFT or MINOR GIFT – acceptance and delivery of possession should be complied with as per Sec.122 of TP ACT
- 2020 APEX COURT [4 ]-Consumer Case – holiday voucher scheme – “free gifts” would be made available to the purchaser against further referrals. the scheme which was propagated by the appellant, the “free gifts” were contingent on the subscriber making referrals- Apex court held that Both from the scheme as well as from the e-mail dated 18 September 2012, it is evident that a subscriber was not entitled, as a matter of right, to the “free gifts” merely on purchasing the holiday vouchers. The free gifts were contingent upon making referrals which, admittedly, were not made by the respondent. The directions of the District Forum, which were affirmed by the SCDRC and NCDRC will result in a manifestly absurd outcome. The order of the District Forum was manifestly contrary to the terms of the agreement between the parties. Both the SCDRC and the NCDRC have erred in confirming the order of the District Forum