Tweet In the movie "Hot Coffee," Susan Saladoff complains that grievously injured medical malpractice victims who cannot recover their full measure of economic damages result in a subsidy from taxpayers who end up picking up the bill to defendants. One can question whether the defendants in the case she singled out were guilty of anything more than being blamed for a bad medical result, and one can complain that she conflates the issue of amorphous noneconomic damages with the particular potential injustice of capped economic damages, but she is right that caps for economic damages are a bad idea.
In the very first case under this act, our judiciary unlimited went on its way to interpret this progressive piece of legislation in a fashion not intended by the legislature?
Presenting in words of thought the case of S.
Taruna Batra, decided in but reported in Whereas, the Apex Court reversed the judgment and declared that only the house owned by the husband, or the house taken on rent by the husband or the house of joint-family in which even husband has a share can only be declared a matrimonial home of the wife.
Facts of the Case: Taruna Batra got married to Shri Amit Batra on 14th April and they had a male child born to them in the 27th November As per the prevailing practice, after their marriage, Smt. The House is though a two floor building registered in the name of Smt.
Dhanwanti Batra, but they all resided on the ground floor of property situated at No. In earlyfew months after their son was born, relations between the Smt. Taruna and Shri Amit Batra started deteriorating. Taruna, Shri Amit Batra treated her cruelly.
This made them shift to the second floor of the said property, which became Smt. However, their shifting to the second floor did not improve their relations, rather on the contrary, their relations deteriorated to such an extent that Shri Amit Batra filed a divorce petition.
On the basis of this complaint Shri Amit Batra and his parents were arrested in January The happening of these events made it difficult for Smt.
Taruna to stay at her matrimonial home and therefore she shifted to her parents' residence. Later, when she tried to enter the matrimonial home, she was unable to as she found that the main entrance was locked. This instigated the first court case by Smt. Taruna Batra Petitioner seeking mandatory injunction to open the main entrance to enable her to reside in the matrimonial home, that is, the second floor of said property.
To which the Respondents Shri Amit Batra and his Parents contented that Shri Amit Batra had purchased some property in Ghaziabad and had shifted there which was the matrimonial home of the Petitioner.
Procedural background This landmark judgment of the Supreme Court has traveled its way up in the judiciary by the decisions of both the lower courts favoring Ms. All that the court had at its disposal was a very recent legislation and a judgment of the apex court. This was a challenge thrown to the court to define the matrimonial home without the aid of the Matrimonial Homes Act, that, but this is not all, there are two other questions that were raised in the court and after this judgment which can neither be ignored nor overlooked.
Emphasis should be laid on the issue concerning Article 50 of the Constitution, which does not empower the court to a make law. The court should also be very careful in the interpretation of a statute.
An absurd interpretation should be ignored. These might be the peripheral questions but their implementation on the long run cannot be ignored. On the contrary, during the pendency of the injunction petition, the Petitioner trespassed upon the property and on an inspection of the second floor, only one blanket belonging to the Petitioner was found.
It was further contended by the Respondents that their son Shri Amit Batra had purchased some property in Ghaziabad and had shifted there.
Therefore, consequently the second floor was not the matrimonial home of the Petitioner. It was submitted that, in law, the occupation of the second floor of the property by the Petitioner was merely permissive as the entire property was owned by the Respondents.
On these broad facts, the learned Trial Judge decided on 4th March, both the applications for ad interim injunction filed by the parties. He held that the Petitioner was 'admittedly' in possession of the second floor of the said property and that it would be in the fitness of things if both the parties did not interfere in each others possession and each others right to have access to the common passage.important in case comment writing since a clear understanding of the essential elements of a judicial decision forms the basis of accurate analysis and enables an author to set out a brief summary of the judicial decision at the outset.
At p. " obviousness is an attack on a patent based on its lack of inventiveness. The attacker says, in effect, "Any fool could have done that.". Your CASE dealer is your single best resource for parts and service expertise. He understands your jobsite challenges and he knows your equipment, inside and out.
About. Amity Law School, Amity University Gurugram is glad to announce its 1st National Case Comment Writing Competition, The objective of this event to promote the importance of the latest landmark judgment passed in September by the Supreme Court.
Oct 17, · At Case IH, operator comfort is a priority because we know that comfortable operators are more productive operators. You’ll appreciate the comfort of the air-ride cab with engine noise isolated behind the tank and the high-back adjustable seat. interpretation/comment Religion, undefined by the constitution, is incapable of precise judicial definition either.
In the background of the provisions of the constitution and the light shed by judicial precedent, it can at best be said that religion is a matter of faith.