WakeelSaab.in

INTRODUCTION The North Goa District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission recently ruled in favor of a complainant in a case against a Furniture Company. Facts and Background The issue involved failure to deliver a bed set within the promised timeframe, along with providing misleading information about dispatch status. The complainant had paid a sum of Rs. 88,200/- for the furniture order, which was later cancelled due to the non-delivery. Decision The commission found the furniture company for guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practices under the Consumer Protection Act and furniture company was directed to refund the full amount of ₹88,200 to the complainant for the cancelled order. The company was also directed to pay ₹30,000 as compensation for the mental agony, harassment, and inconvenience caused to the complainant. The proceedings were ordered to be closed after compliance. This decision was reported around late January 2026 highlighting the company's failure...

INTRODUCTION   The recent case decided by the Singapore High Court (Family Division) which involved the dissolution of a 37-year marriage. This judgment, delivered in late 2025, has been highlighted for providing clear guidance on how the Family Justice Courts handle long marriages, particularly regarding the classification of the marriage type, division of matrimonial assets (including dealing with disputed or hidden assets), drawing adverse inferences, and claims for spousal maintenance. Facts and Background   The parties were married for approximately 37 years. The case centered on ancillary matters after interim judgment for divorce: division of matrimonial assets and the wife's claim for maintenance. The husband was the primary breadwinner (single-income earner), while the wife was a homemaker, contributing indirectly through homemaking and family care. The court classified it as a long single-income marriage.  This is significant because Singapore courts apply diffe...

INTRODUCTION Recently Delhi High Court stated that no police officer can freeze the company's account without prior approval from the competent court.  FACTS AND BACKGROUND   Company's bank accounts were frozen by banks based on the police communications in relation to some third-party who is alleged to be involved in some cyber fraud. This was being done without registering any FIR, any charges or allegations booked against the said company. OBSERVATIONS OF COURT It was observed that police cannot freeze the bank accounts based upon the prima facie view. In fact, no police officer can freeze the account without having any approval from competent court of law. It was further explained that as per Sec 106 BNSS, 2023, police is merely empowered to seize any property merely for evidentiary purposes but does not entitled to freeze/attach the bank accounts. However, it is only under Sec 107 BNSS, 2023, that the police is empowered to freeze an account that too without prior permiss...

INTRODUCTION The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that police cannot directly register an FIR for offences committed in or in relation to court proceedings. Instead, the procedure outlined under Sections 215 and 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 must be followed. This means the concerned court itself must initiate the process by making a complaint, rather than allowing direct police action via FIR. This observation came in a recent judgment decided on January 7, 2026. Observations   Core Holding: Where an offence (such as those affecting public justice, e.g., false evidence, forgery of documents produced in court, perjury, or similar acts obstructing judicial proceedings) is alleged to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding before a court, or involves a document produced or given in evidence in such a proceeding, the police lack authority to straightaway register an FIR and investigate independently. The court must take the initiative. Dir...

INTRODUCTION   In a landmark judgment that addresses the growing trend of "matrimonial warfare," the Supreme Court of India recently brought an end to a 13-year legal battle between a couple who had lived together for only 65 days . Facts and Background  The marriage between the parties solemnized in January 2012. The parties only lived together for a short period of 65 days. After being separated, there were about 40 cases filed across various forums in Delhi and UP. The litigation included a barrage of civil and criminal cases, ranging from transfer petitions and maintenance claims to allegations of cruelty and perjury.  Despite multiple attempts at mediation, the bitterness between the parties only intensified over the decade, leading the Court to observe that "good sense" had long been abandoned. Observations  Under Article 142 , the Supreme Court has the "plenary power" to pass any order necessary to ensure "complete justice."  In this case,...