Kewal Krishan v. Rajesh Kumar

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 54 – a sale of an immovable property has to be for a price. The price may be payable in future. It may be partly paid and the remaining part can be made payable in future. The payment of price is an essential part of a sale covered by section 54 of the TP Act. If a sale deed in respect of an immovable property is executed without payment of price and if it does not provide for the payment of price at a future date, it is not a sale at all in the eyes of law. It is of no legal effect. Therefore, such a sale will be void. It will not effect the transfer of the immovable property.

Meena Pawaia v. Ashraf Ali

Motor Accident Claims – Merely because in the execution proceedings the claimants might have accepted the amount as awarded by the Court, may be as full and final settlement, it shall not take away the right of the claimants to claim just compensation and shall not preclude them from claiming the enhanced amount of compensation which they as such are held to be entitled to. 

Bhupesh Rathod v. Dayashankar Prasad Chaurasia

Cheque Complaint – No Magistrate could insist that the particular person whose statement was taken on oath alone can continue to represent the Company till the end of the proceedings. Not only that, even if there was initially no authority the Company can at any stage rectify that defect by sending a competent person. 2021 (6) KHC 368

Malayil Samad v. Bharati Airtel Ltd.

Call Details – the licence issued to service provider will not permit them to furnish call details – In such circumstances, High Court can’t issue any direction to service provider to furnish the call details. 2021 (6) KHC 344