Month: November 2021

(CPC)- S 100 – Dismissal of second appeal without assigning any reasons for conclusion – Court must display its conscious application of mind even while dismissing the appeal at the admission stage – Giving reasons for the conclusion is necessary as it helps the adversely affected party to understand why his submissions were not accepted – High Court cannot dismiss the second appeal in limine without assigning any reasons for its conclusion HELD An appeal under Section 100 of the CPC could be filed both against the ‘concurrent findings’ or ‘divergent findings’ of the courts below.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HASMAT ALI — Appellant Vs. AMINA BIBI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – Section 22 – Further construction – Environmental Clearance – Project of the appellant comprises six buildings of which three were constructed in full, and the super structure of the fourth building is completed and only the internal works remains to be done – Further construction cannot be made without environment impact assessment – If the Project Proponent wishes to construct the remaining buildings, they must secure fresh clearance from the competent authority, as per the currently applicable framework –

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. SAI BABA SALES PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 307 – Arms Act, 1959 – Section 27 – Attempt to murder – Using arms – Appellant-accused was admittedly a police official – Illegal use of a licensed or sanctioned weapon per se does not constitute an offence under Section 27, without proving the misdemeanour under Section 5 or 7 of the Arms Act. At best, it could be a ‘misconduct’ under the service rules, the determination of which was not the subject of the trial – No motive or element of planning has been proved by the Prosecution –

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SURINDER SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE (UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH) — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI, Surya Kant and A.S. Bopanna, JJ.…

Service Matters

Service Law – Back-wages – In the case of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back-wages is normal rule and the adjudicating authority to take into consideration the length of service of the employee, nature of misconduct, financial condition of the employer and similar other factors – High Court has correctly granted 50% of the back wages to the respondent.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. RAM BAHADUR YADAV — Respondent ( Before : R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. )…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302 and 449 read with Section 34 – Murder of five persons – Death sentence – Review Petition – Possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of the convict is an important factor which has to be taken into account as a mitigating circumstance before sentencing him to death – There is a bounden duty cast on the Courts to elicit information of all the relevant factors and consider those regarding the possibility of reformation, even if the accused remains silent – Court convert the sentence imposed on the Petitioners from death to life

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MOFIL KHAN AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and B.V. Nagarathna,…

(SARFAESI) – Section 34 – Civil suit is attracted allegations of ‘fraud’ are made without any particulars – Suit was not maintainable in view of the bar contained under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act – Except the words used ‘fraud’/’fraudulent’ there are no specific particulars pleaded with respect to the ‘fraud’. It appears that by a clever drafting and using the words ‘fraud’/’fraudulent’ without any specific particulars with respect to the ‘fraud’,. Suit not maintainable

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ELECTROSTEEL CASTINGS LIMITED — Appellant Vs. UV ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ.…

Indian Penal Code (“IPC”) Sections 147, 302 read with 149, 323 read with 149, 324 read with Section 149 and 201 read with Section 149 and Section 3(3)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989- HELD The ghastly murders of three youngsters which are honour killings squarely falls under the head of anti-social and abhorrent nature of the crime as mentioned in Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) 3 SCC 470

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH HARI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, Sanjiv Khanna and B.R. Gavai,…

Succession Act, 1925 – Section 63 – Execution of unprivileged Wills — The person claiming to be scribe of the Will as well as the two attesting witnesses deposed to support the case of the original plaintiff, but both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court disbelieved their testimony. The thumb impression of ‘K’ was not matched. There was contradiction in the evidences of attesting witnesses as regards the place of execution. The requirement of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 cannot be said to have been fulfilled by mechanical compliance of the stipulations – – An enquiry of such nature was impermissible while hearing an appeal under S 100 of the CPC

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF HARYANA — Appellant Vs. HARNAM SINGH (DEAD) THR. LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose,…

Even the version of a single witness, if his testimony is found reliable by the Court, can be the foundation of the order of conviction – HELD Order of conviction and sentence recorded against original accused A1, A6, A7, A8, A10 and A13 by the Trial Court is thus restored – Appeals partly allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF RAJASTHAN — Appellant Vs. BABLU @ OM PRAKASH — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Ajay Rastogi, JJ. ) Criminal…

You missed

Temple Bye Laws — Oachira Parabrahma Temple — Ancient structure without a building or deity, governed by Bye-laws with three-tier elected committees — Appellants, elected Secretary and President, challenged two High Court orders (2020 and 2023) that removed their committee and appointed an unelected one under an Administrative Head, citing violations of the temple’s Bye-laws and customs —Legality of appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one contrary to the temple’s Bye-laws — Petitioner argues that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction and violated the temple’s governance structure by appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one without proper legal basis — The High Court’s actions were necessary for the efficient administration of the temple until a scheme could be framed and new elections held — The Supreme Court modified the High Court orders, appointing a new retired Judge as Administrative Head to conduct fair elections within four months, while directing all parties to cooperate — The Court emphasized the need to preserve temple properties and governance as per established customs and laws — The Supreme Court struck down the High Court’s order appointing an unelected committee, appointed a new Administrative Head to conduct elections, and directed all parties to cooperate, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the temple’s established governance structure and Bye-laws.