Expensive litigation, exorbitant lawyer fees coupled with an almost non-existent legal aid system have made one of the world's strongest judiciary systems inaccessible to the common man.
“India has acquired a reputation of an expensive legal system. In part, this is because of delays but there is also a question of affordability of fees. The idea is that a relatively poor person cannot reach the doors of justice for a fair hearing only because of financial or similar constraints while it is in our constitutional values and republic ethics. It is a burden on our collective conscience."
President Ram Nath Kovind, on November 25, 2017 - The National Law Day
A retired District Judge and family, driven by the belief that quality legal guidance shouldn't depend on how much you can afford. We built this platform to give everyone in India a fair shot at understanding their rights.
Our aim is to help people in need of legal advice for their problems.
Drafting documents or giving citation of judgments is beyond the scope of this website.We do not entertain any third party queries (questions related to persons not directly affected).
Simply submit your inquiry through our Google Form and we'll review it and email you back with guidance. It's that easy — free, confidential, and no strings attached.
Your query will reach us in our email and the reply will be posted to you email. No one else except you and the adviser would know the nature and substance of your query. Thus it is totally confidential, safe and secure.
Marriage
Divorce
Child custody
Maintenance
Contracts
Sale of goods
properties
Partnership
Cheque dishonour
Power of attorney
Insurance
Damages
Criminal negligence
Compensation
Gift
Settlement
Sale
Trespass/
encroachment
Easements
Registration
Arrest
Bail
Trial
Prosecution
Defence
Domestic Violence
Dowry Harassment
We have simplified our inquiry submission process! To submit your details and legal queries, please click the button below to fill out our secure Google Form. We will review your inquiry and get back to you.
Submit your inquiries!
Daughters, like sons, have an equal right to inherit ancestral property.
In a civil appeal, The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed as follows:
The legislation that conferred coparcenary status on women dates back to 2005, when the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was amended.
The verdict answers the question whether the coparcenary right of daughters comes into effect only if the father — through whom the right is claimed — was alive on the day the amendment came into force. The top court ruled that a daughter’s right flows from her birth and not by any other factor.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.DIARY NO.32601 OF 2018
Vineeta Sharma vs Rakesh Sharma & others (Hon'ble Arun Mishra, Hon'ble S Abdul Nazeer and Hon'ble M R Shah,JJ.) Date : August 11, 2020.
Yes. There is no restriction in law
In a civil appeal (11495 of 2018) The Supreme Court has observed : "Though the claimants had claimed a total compensation of R.25,00,00/ in their claim petition filed before the Tribunal, we feel that the compensation which the claimants are entitled to is higher than the same as mentioned supra."
And further held “There is no restriction that the court cannot award compensation exceeding the claimed amount, since the function of the Tribunal or Court under section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is to award “Just Compensation”. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation.
And further observed “A ‘Just Compensation’ is one which is reasonable on the basisi of evidence produced on record. It cannot be said to have become time barred. Further, there is no need for a new casue of action to claim an enhanced amount. The courts are duty bound to award the “Just Compensation”.
Cases referred:Judgments of this Court in cases of (a) Nagappa Vs Gurudayal Singh1 (b) Magma General Insurance Vs Nanu Ram 2 (C) Ibrahim Vs. Raju 3.
1 (2003) 2 SCC 274. 2 (2018) SCC Online SC 1546
(Civil Appeal No. 9581 of 2018 decided on 18.09.2018).
3 (2011) 10 SCC 634.
"No" said the Supreme court.
In a civil appeal (No.2530 OF 2012) The Supreme Court observed: "The legislature was alive to various kinds of definitions of the word “employee” contained in various previous labour enactments when the Act was passed in 1972. If it intended to cover in the definition of “employee” all kinds of employees, it could have as well used such wide language as is contained in Section 2(f) of the Employees’ Provident Funds Act, 1952 which defines “employee” to mean “any person who is employed for wages in any kind of work, manual or otherwise, in or in connection with the work of an establishment …”. Non use of such wide language in the definition of “employee” in Section 2(e) of the Act of 1972 reinforces our conclusion that teachers are clearly not covered in the definition."
And concluded " It is for the legislature to take cognizance of situation of such teachers in various establishments where gratuity benefits are not available and think of a separate legislation for them in this regard. That is the subject matter solely of the legislature to consider and decide.”
Birla Institute of Technology vs The State of Jharkhand & Ors.(Hon'ble Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. and Indu Malhotra.J -judgment dt-Jan 7, 2019)