Month: July 2023

Determination of disability – the disablement would be taken as total for the purposes of award of compensation under section 4(1)(b) of the Act regardless of the injury sustained being not one as specified in Part I of Schedule I of the Act – The proviso to clause (l) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act does not dilute the import of the substantive clause – Rather, it adds to it by specifying categories wherein it shall be deemed that there is permanent total disablement.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH INDRA BAI — Appellant Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ. ) Civil…

Murder – Acquittal – circumstances found proved do not constitute a chain so far complete as to indicate that in all human probability it were the accused persons and no one else who committed the crime – In such a situation, there was no option for the trial court but to extend the benefit of doubt to the accused – Order of acquittal upheld – Appeal dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION — Appellant Vs. SHYAM BIHARI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B. V. Nagarathna and Manoj Misra, JJ. )…

Once the acquisition under Land Acquisition Act 1894 continues to be valid, the claimant is disentitled to claim compensation in terms of the Right to Fair Compensation Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 which was not applicable to the acquisition.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — Appellant Vs. JAGAN SINGH & OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, JJ. ) Civil…

Even if there is no period prescribed for filing the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, yet it should be filed within a reasonable time – Relief to a person, who puts forward a stale claim can certainly be refused relief on account of delay and laches – Anyone who sleeps over his rights is bound to suffer.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF ORISSA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. LAXMI NARAYAN DAS (DEAD) THR. LRS AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka…

Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 itself has been abrogated in the year 2001, with a new statute coming into force, i.e. The Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, which does not create any similar bar – Decree of eviction favour of the appellant-landlord – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAVI KHANDELWAL — Appellant Vs. M/S. TALUKA STORES — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

It is not at the sweet-will of the Government that the extensions can be granted to the incumbents in the office of the Director of CBI/Director of Enforcement – It is only on the basis of the recommendations of the Committees which are constituted to recommend their appointment and that too when it is found in public interest and when the reasons are recorded in writing, such an extension can be granted by the Government.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH DR. JAYA THAKUR — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol, JJ.…

(CrPC) – Section 438 – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120­B – Anticipatory Bail – – land scams not only result in financial losses for individuals and investors but also disrupt development projects, erode public trust, and hinder socio­economic progress – – Order granting anticipatory bail is set-aside – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRATIBHA MANCHANDA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Surya Kant and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. )…

You missed

For best interest and welfare of the child are the paramount considerations when determining visitation rights A. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — The paramount consideration when determining visitation rights is the best interest and welfare of the child — This principle takes precedence over the rights of the parents — The court emphasizes that a child’s health and well-being must not be compromised in the process of adjudicating parental rights. B. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — Both parents have a right to the care, company, and affection of their child — However, this right is not absolute and must be balanced with the need to protect the child’s welfare — In this case, the court acknowledges the father’s right to visit his daughter but ensures that these visits do not negatively impact the child. C. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — Matrimonial disputes and serious allegations between parents should not impede a child’s right to the care and company of both parents — The court separates the child’s welfare from the conflict between the parents. D. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — Visitation arrangements must not cause undue hardship to the child — The court modified the High Court’s order, which required the child to travel 300 kilometers every Sunday, as it was deemed detrimental to the child’s health and well-being. E. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — The location for visitation must be convenient and in the best interest of the child — The court changed the visitation location from Karur to Madurai, which is closer to the child’s residence, in order to prioritize the child’s comfort and convenience. F. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — Supervised visitation may be necessary, especially for young children — The court directed that the father’s visits should occur in a public place, with the mother present (though at a distance), due to the child’s young age and unfamiliarity with the father.