Welcome to today’s Daily Legal Digest from Sukhdeep Singh Khaira & Associates, Patiala. Each day we pick a handful of court decisions and legal developments from the last day or two and explain, in plain language, what they mean for families, businesses and individuals in Punjab and across India. No legal jargon, just what happened and why it matters.
Senior Citizens Act cannot be used to throw a daughter-in-law out of the family home: Punjab & Haryana High Court
A Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed an appeal by a mother-in-law who tried to use the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 to evict her estranged daughter-in-law from a shared house. The Court found the eviction application was really filed to help her son gain the upper hand in a separate matrimonial dispute, and held that the Act exists to protect elderly parents, not to settle property or marriage fights. The daughter-in-law’s right to reside in the shared household, recognised by the Supreme Court in earlier cases, stands.
Why it matters: in many Punjab households, the Senior Citizens Act has become a shortcut to remove an unwanted family member. This ruling makes clear that courts will look at the real purpose behind such applications. If you are facing eviction from your matrimonial home, or you are a senior citizen with a genuine maintenance problem, the route you choose matters. Our family law team handles both sides of these disputes. Source: LiveLaw.
Supreme Court lets actor Rajpal Yadav stay out of jail in cheque bounce cases, but only against a Rs 5 crore deposit
On Tuesday, a Bench led by the Chief Justice of India granted actor Rajpal Yadav interim exemption from surrendering to serve his sentence in seven cheque dishonour cases, on the condition that he deposits Rs 5 crore with the Court’s Registry by the next day. The Delhi High Court had earlier upheld his conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and a three-month jail term in each case. The matter is listed again on 15 September.
Why it matters: cheque bounce is a criminal offence in India, and even well-known personalities are not spared a jail sentence. The lesson for anyone who has issued a cheque that bounced is simple: courts are far more willing to grant relief when the money is actually put on the table. If you have received a legal notice for a dishonoured cheque, or your cheque has bounced, early action can make a real difference. Read more on our cheque bounce page. Sources: LiveLaw, ANI.
A widow’s family pension starts from the day her husband died, not from the day she went to court: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has ruled in favour of the widow of a Railway employee who died in 2000 but was granted family pension only from 2014, the year she first approached the Central Administrative Tribunal. Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Shree Chandrashekhar held that pension is a valuable right and not a favour, that the delay was not her fault (she had to fight a civil suit just to fix the recorded date of her husband’s death), and that she is entitled to arrears from the date of death itself, with 6% interest. The Court also observed that its earlier 2014 ruling limiting such arrears to three years had overlooked a binding precedent on widows’ pensions.
Why it matters: families of government and public-sector employees across Punjab routinely face years of delay in getting family pension released, and departments often argue that arrears should be capped. This decision gives widows a strong basis to claim pension from the actual date of death where the delay was caused by the department, not by them. Source: LiveLaw.
Supreme Court: a company can be prosecuted even if no individual officer has been named as accused
In a judgment reported on Monday, a Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra held that criminal proceedings against a company cannot be quashed at the threshold merely because the prosecution has not identified or arraigned the specific employee or director who acted on its behalf. The Court also laid down a three-stage test for deciding when an individual’s conduct and intention can be attributed to the company itself. The ruling came in a CBI case against Sanofi India relating to supplies to BARC.
Why it matters: business owners, directors and partnership firms in Punjab often assume that a company cannot face a criminal case unless a named person is charged alongside it. That is no longer a safe assumption. At the same time, the judgment makes clear that not every act by an employee automatically becomes the company’s crime. If your firm or company has received a summons or an FIR names it as an accused, our criminal defence team can assess your position. Source: LiveLaw.
If any of today’s developments touches an issue you or your family are dealing with, you are welcome to get in touch with our office at the District Courts, Patiala for a confidential discussion.
This digest is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Advocate Sukhdeep Singh Khaira & Associates, Patiala.