Latest news with #CivilCourt
Khaleej Times
21-05-2025
- Khaleej Times
Dubai: Man blinded after fight over WhatsApp message awarded Dh100,000
An Arab expat, who lost his eyesight after an altercation with an Asian man, has been granted Dh100,000 in compensation. The incident broke out when he sent an offensive message to the Asian individual through the messaging app, WhatsApp. In response, the recipient attacked him, landing a punch to his right eye that led to a detached retina and permanent blindness. His condition was classified as a 35 per cent disability, according to a forensic medical report. After they were referred to Dubai's criminal court, the Arab man was fined Dh1,000 for using offensive language over a digital platform, while the Asian was sentenced to six months in prison and ordered to be deported. The verdict was upheld by the Court of Appeal and later confirmed by the Court of Cassation, making the ruling final, Emarat Al Youm reported. After the criminal case concluded, the victim filed a civil lawsuit seeking Dh150,000 in damages for physical injury, emotional trauma, and financial loss. He also requested 12 per cent interest from the filing until full payment. The court reviewed medical reports, criminal judgments, and supporting documents provided by the plaintiff. With the defendant absent despite proper notification, the Civil Court ruled on the case. In its judgment, the court found that the attack caused lasting harm to the victim's eye and head, resulting in both physical and psychological suffering. The injury disrupted the victim's ability to work and caused him pain, distress, and a sense of humiliation. Citing legal precedent, the court noted that emotional damage includes harm to dignity, feelings, and reputation, and that determining compensation for such damage falls within the court's discretion. Based on the evidence, the court ordered the attacker to pay Dh100,000 in compensation and five per cent interest from the date the judgment becomes final.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
13-05-2025
- Business
- Business Standard
In nominee vs legal heir who gets the precedence? Court says inheritance
Where there is a Will there's a way. But what if there is no Will? The Allahabad High Court has, in one such a case, upheld the supremacy of succession laws over the Insurance Act. While hearing a petition filed by a woman from Unnao, the court held that a nominee cannot be considered the absolute beneficiary of the insurance money, emphasising that the nominee merely acts as a trustee for the legal heirs. Case background Kusum, the petitioner, had purchased 15 life insurance policies in the name of her daughter, Ranjeeta, before she got married. Later, Ranjeeta got married to Anand Kumar, before her sudden demise in 2021. She left behind an 11 months old child. On Ranjeeta's death, her mother Kusum – who had declared herself as nominee at the time of purchasing policies -- sought to claim the entire insurance amount. However, Ranjeeta's husband contested the claim, and the matter reached the Civil Court. It escalated to the Allahabad High Court. Court's findings and ruling The High Court ruled that while the petitioner was the nominee on the insurance policies, she did not have ownership of the policy amounts. The court upheld that a nominee's role is to act as a trustee for the rightful legal heirs, and the insurance money must be treated as part of the deceased's estate. The court directed that the life insurance amounts be excluded from the assets list, with further instructions for the amounts to be placed in Fixed Deposit Receipts under the minor granddaughter's name until she turns 18. Expert opinions on the ruling Alay Razvi, managing partner at Accord Juris, said, 'A nominee under a life insurance policy is not the ultimate beneficiary but merely a trustee for the legal heirs. Nominations alone cannot override succession laws, and families with multiple legal heirs or complex dynamics must take further steps to ensure the policy proceeds reach the intended beneficiaries.' Tushar Kumar, advocate at the Supreme Court, said, 'This ruling underscores that mere nomination is not enough. A well-structured estate plan, including a valid Will or trust, is essential to avoid legal disputes and ensure that the insurance payout reaches the rightful heirs.' Why is a Will important? Raadhika Chawla, advocate at the Delhi High Court, pointed out that the ruling makes it essential for individuals to revisit their estate planning. 'Section 39 of the Insurance Act does not override succession laws… Policyholders should revise their estate planning by making a clear Will alongside the nomination to ensure that the intended beneficiaries receive the insurance payout without legal disputes.' On practical steps for families with complex dynamics, she said, 'Individuals should create a clear, registered Will aligning with the insurance nomination. The nominee should ideally be the same person named in the Will to avoid disputes.'
Hindustan Times
02-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Hindustan Times
High Court in Goa refuses former CM's petition to stay release of film ‘Costao'
The Bombay high court at Goa dismissed an appeal filed by former Goa chief minister Churchill Alemao who had sought an injunction against the release of the film 'Costão' that released on OTT platforms on Thursday -- a film loosely based on the life of customs officer Costão Fernandes. Churchill had earlier approached the Civil Court at South Goa with a civil defamation case against the producers and others of the film seeking damages to the tune of ₹100-crore alleging that the film being produced 'was solely based on the narrative given by Costão Fernandes, in complete ignorance of various judicial proceedings that were initiated in respect of the incident, and which are contained in various judgments of this Court and of the Supreme Court based on an incomplete narrative of the facts of the particular incident and is in the nature of defaming [Churchill] and his family members, harming his reputation, his public image and his political status.' In his petition, Churchill claimed that the film, if allowed to be produced and released, would portray him and his family as a 'villain' and would allow the producers to make commercial gain at the cost of [his] reputation and political career and of his family members. In response, the producers and other respondents to the case defended the film stating that the entire case 'proceeds based on inferences drawn from newspaper articles and reports or comments made publicly by third parties who have not seen the film'; that their film is a work of fiction that does not purport to be a true story and that the real life incident 'may have inspired the film.' The film contains a specific disclaimer that 'any resemblance to persons, past or present is purely incidental,' the producers also said. Also Read:Nawazuddin Siddiqui swam in crocodile-infested lake for Costao, finished shot despite bike brakes failing The high court bench of Justice Valmiki Menezes ruled in favour of the film and denied the injunction. The order of the court was released on Wednesday, a day before the film's release. 'Atleast at this stage, before the release of the film, the defendants have set out a case that the film is a work of fiction, dramatising an incident which is described in records of various courts. The defendants also claim that the film is based on inspiration derived from the facts stated in court records and from the version of the incident stated by Costão. The claim is that the film is a work purely of fiction and dramatizing the incident to give it a certain entertainment value for viewers. There are enough safeguards also placed in the form of a disclaimer. Nothing is shown on record to draw any likeness of any character in the film, which is not yet released, or for the Plaintiff to believe from any material that the character has a likeness similar to the Plaintiff or any members of his family,' Justice Menezes, said.
Gulf News
26-04-2025
- Business
- Gulf News
Gulf Citizen's lawsuit backfires, ordered to repay parents Dh9.8 million
Dubai: A Gulf citizen has filed a lawsuit against his parents, demanding they pay him Dh59.5 million for expenses he claimed to have spent on their behalf. However, following a detailed review, Dubai's Civil Court ruled that the son was, in fact, indebted to his parents and ordered him to pay them Dh7.2 million. According to court records, the son sought Dh35.7 million from his father and Dh18.6 million from his mother, along with an additional Dh5.3 million dirhams for expenses he claimed were spent jointly for their benefit. He also demanded 5 per cent legal interest calculated from the date of filing. The son based his claim on his 17-year involvement in managing his parents' properties, real estate projects, and companies under a general power of attorney granted by his father. He claimed that he dedicated his full efforts to enhance their assets, establishing companies to execute construction, maintenance, and service operations at minimal profit to himself. The dispute arose after delays in payment of his alleged dues. The son claimed that his parents, after years of harmonious cooperation, suddenly revoked his power of attorney without informing him while he was still executing projects on their behalf. He also said he faced a wave of lawsuits from creditors due to the unresolved payments and sought an amicable resolution, but ultimately turned to the courts after negotiations failed. In response, the parents, represented by legal consultant Mohammed Najib, filed a counterclaim. They stated that the son had been working in a modest government job before they entrusted him with managing their estates and finances. Through a general power of attorney, they gave him extensive authority over properties, bank accounts, vehicles, and companies. In addition, they supported him financially to establish his own businesses. However, according to the parents, the son exploited this trust, setting up companies in sectors such as carpentry, electricity, plumbing, engineering consultancy, aluminum, and glass, to capture contracts related to their properties. They accused him of diverting substantial benefits to himself. The relationship deteriorated when the father discovered alleged financial and technical irregularities amounting to over Dh100 million. Despite repeated requests, the son allegedly delayed providing complete financial disclosures, leading to the cancellation of his power of attorney. Following this, he initiated court action against his parents for unpaid dues. An earlier forensic audit in related legal disputes found that the son owed his father approximately Dh31 million and had manipulated financial records to falsely claim entitlements. In the present case, the court appointed an independent expert who concluded that while the son had legitimately spent Dh2.6 million on behalf of his parents, he owed them approximately Dh9.8 million overall.
Gulf Today
02-03-2025
- Business
- Gulf Today
Dubai court orders real estate firm, broker to return Dhs3.2m to investor
The Civil Court in Dubai has ordered a real estate broker and a property development company to refund Dhs3,299,000 to an Arab investor and his partner, who had paid the amount for the purchase of a residential unit, but the broker and the company did not hand over the purchase contract. According to the details of the lawsuit, the Arab investor and his partner filed an electronic lawsuit in September 2024, against the broker and the property development company demanding that they be jointly obliged to return the amount, in addition to legal interest of 5% from the date of the ruling until full payment, as well as legal expenses and lawyer's fees. The case documents indicated that an agreement was established between the first plaintiff (the buyer), who is the manager and partner of a commercial company, and the first appellee (the broker), who offered the buyer a residential unit owned by a well-known real estate development company and requested him to issue a cheque of Dhs3,990,000 to secure the reservation of the unit and complete the purchase process. However, the deal was not finalised as the buyer did not receive the apartment contract, and the broker did not return the paid amount despite repeated demands. After examining the facts of the case and the legal evidence, the court ruled that the appellees be jointly obliged to pay Dhs3,299,555, with legal interest of 5% annually from the date of maturity until full payment. The court also ordered them to pay court and attorney's fees. Dr Alaa Nasr, the legal representative of the buyer, stated that during the court hearings, the court reviewed the submitted documents, which included payment receipts and correspondence between the parties. The court listened to the appellees' arguments, who denied their responsibility to refund the full amount, claiming that the deal was not completed due to circumstances beyond their control.
