Latest Post

Legal Representatives Can Claim Motor Accident Compensation Even Without Financial Dependency On Deceased Execution Of Unregistered Agreement To Sell Does Not Terminate Subsisting Landlord-Tenant Relationship Nor Entitle Tenant To Section 53A TP Act Protection A. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Section 111(e) & (f) — Landlord and Tenant — Determination of lease by express or implied surrender — Execution of agreement to sell by landlord in favour of tenant — Effect on jural relationship — Held, mere execution of an agreement to sell between landlord and tenant does not ipso facto determine the subsisting tenancy — Tenancy is determined only when terms of agreement or unequivocal conduct of parties disclose express or implied surrender — Where agreement to sell contained clause for cancellation and restoration of possession in case loan was not sanctioned, existing possession was referable to tenancy and not to agreement to sell — Landlord-tenant relationship continued to subsist. Appellate Courts Should Not Remand Cases Under Order 41 Rule 23 CPC As A Matter Of Course When Sufficient Evidence Is Available On Record. A. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 41 Rules 23 and 24 — Power of Appellate Court to remand — Remand of case to Trial Court for framing of additional issues and fresh evidence — Permissibility — High Court remitted suit regarding one item of property for framing issues on whether sale deed was sham, limitation, and possession — Held, remand is not to be adopted as a matter of ordinary course and reflects incorrect exercise of discretion when sufficient evidence is available on record — Issues already framed by Trial Court were comprehensive enough to cover core disputes — Appellate Court is fully empowered to decide issues on merits or admit additional evidence if warranted, rather than remitting matter to cause unnecessary delay — Remand set aside and appeals restored to High Court for fresh disposal on merits. Extended Period Of Limitation Under Proviso To Section 11A, Central Excise Act Cannot Be Invoked When Facts Are Known To Department Without Wilful Suppression A. Central Excise Act, 1944 — Section 35L — Maintainability of appeal before Supreme Court — Preliminary objection raised by Department that appeal does not come under Section 35L as issue had no relation to rate of duty or valuation — Held, issue raised regarding extended period of limitation on ground of non-inclusion of certain costs in assessable value has an inextricable link with valuation of goods for purposes of assessment — Issue raised in show cause notice fundamentally dealt with valuation of goods — Supreme Court declined to relegate matter to High Court after almost a decade of pendency — Preliminary objection rejected. Environment Law — Environmental Clearance — Prior clearance — Mandatory character — Prior environmental clearance under EIA Notification, 2006 is mandatory, being founded on the precautionary principle and couched in imperative terms — Word “prior” and the graded four-stage screening, scoping, public consultation and appraisal process render an anterior assessment the sine qua non of the clearance regime — Decriminalisation of contraventions under Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023 does not alter this mandatory character.

“Family Feud Over Property: Kamla Nagar Goes to One Side, Malcha Marg to the Other” – The court analyzed the Registration Act’s requirements for documenting transfers of property rights and concluded that the lack of registration indicated no settlement existed – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment regarding the Kamla Nagar property, restoring the Trial Court’s decision and confirming the appellants’ sole ownership – The decision regarding the Malcha Marg property was upheld, leaving it exclusively to the respondents.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JUGAL KISHORE KHANNA(D) THR LRS AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SUDHIR KHANNA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah,…

Property Dispute – The case involves disputes over property ownership after the original owner, ‘S’, passed away in 1947 – The Court found no foundation for the plea of adverse possession in the plaintiff’s claim, as the necessary facts were not adequately pleaded or proved – The appeals were dismissed, with the Court upholding the original decrees and granting the appellant time until March 31, 2025, to vacate the property, subject to certain conditions.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M. RADHESHYAMLAL — Appellant Vs. V SANDHYA AND ANOTHER ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. ) Civil…

Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 354D, 376(2)(n), 504 and 506 read with 34 – Supreme Court found inconsistencies in the appellant’s statements and lack of evidence for the alleged forced abortion at Nursing Home – The Court referenced previous judgments to establish that consent vitiated by a false promise of marriage does not constitute rape under Section 375 of IPC unless the promise was proven to be false at inception – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the High Court that continuing the proceedings would be an abuse of the legal process and result in miscarriage of justice.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MS. X — Appellant Vs. MR. A AND OTHERS ( Before : B.R. Gavai, Rajesh Bindal and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No……of…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 109, 302 and 307 – Murder – Appeal against conviction – Court found inconsistencies in testimonies, lack of independent witnesses, and lapses in the police investigation – The Court discussed the right of private defense and the standards for “interested” versus “independent” witnesses – This Court allowed the appeals, set aside the convictions, and directed the release of both appellants, citing reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PERIYASAMY — Appellant Vs. THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE — Respondent ( Before : Hrishikesh Roy and Sanjay Karol, JJ. )…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302 and IPC – Murder – Conviction and Sentence – Modification of Sentence – Court meticulously examined the circumstantial evidence, confirming the appellant’s guilt and finding no plausible explanation for the events from the appellant – The Court discussed the principles of circumstantial evidence, emphasizing the need for a complete chain of evidence pointing to the appellant’s guilt – The Court upheld the conviction for murder, house-trespass, and attempted suicide, maintaining the modified sentence of life imprisonment for 30 years without remission

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH NAVAS @ MULANAVAS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KERALA — Respondent ( Before : B. R. Gavai, K.V. Viswanathan and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. )…

You missed