Power of Attorney Holder Cannot Depose for the Principal for Acts done by the Principal.

In Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and Another v. Indusind Bank Ltd. and Others [AIR 2005 SC 439], the Supreme Court held that a Power of Attorney holder cannot depose for the principal in respect of acts done by the principal and not by him. He cannot depose in respect of matters of which the principal alone has personal knowledge, and in respect of which the principal is entitled to be cross-examined.

Post-Conviction Remand v. Suspension of Sentence by Magistrate Courts

When a Magistrate Court convicts an accused, the rule that "bail is the rule and jail is the exception" no longer applies. Under Section 389(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) / corresponding Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) provisions, the trial court may suspend a short sentence (not exceeding 3 years) and grant brief post-conviction bail to allow the convict time to file an appeal.

The Sale of Indivisible Property under the Partition Act

Partition suits unfold in two key steps. First, a Preliminary Decree determines everyone's legal percentages. Second, a Court-appointed Commissioner inspects the property to see if it can be physically split. With compact or complex structures—like a single house, a tight commercial shop, or an irregular plot—a physical division is rarely practical.

Court Fee Is Payable on the Principal Relief, Not the Ancillary Relief: Kerala High Court

In Madathil Pakruti v. T.P. Kunjanandan [2025: KER:80993], the Kerala High Court has held that where a suit challenges multiple documents relating to the same property, a declaratory relief against a subsequent document — whose fate depends entirely on the outcome of the challenge to an earlier document — is merely ancillary. The Court fee in such case need be computed only on the principal relief, in terms of the proviso to Section 6(1) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959.