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.
Service Matters

The Court reasons that the service as a High Court Judge should be cumulated with district judiciary service for pension calculation, and the break in service should not adversely affect the pension – The Court analyzes the constitutional and statutory provisions, emphasizing the importance of non-discrimination in pension computation for Judges, regardless of their service origin – The Court concludes that Justice Garg is entitled to pension calculated on the basis of her last drawn salary as a High Court Judge, including arrears with interest – The appeal by the Union of India is disposed of accordingly.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE — Appellant Vs. JUSTICE (RETD) RAJ RAHUL GARG (RAJ RANI JAIN) AND OTHERS — Respondent (…

Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 1999 – Sections 3 and 4 – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 341, 323, 354, 354 (B), 379, 504, 506 and 149 – – The respondent opposes anticipatory bail, asserting that the petitioner’s involvement is established – They contend that the seriousness of the charges warrants denial of bail – The court acknowledges that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy – It emphasizes that such relief should be granted sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances – The court considers the petitioner’s status as an absconder and weighs the evidence against them – After thorough consideration, the court rules on the anticipatory bail application – Appeal Dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SRIKANT UPADHYAY AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar, JJ. )…

Maharashtra Hereditary Offices Act, 1874 Sections 5, 11, 11A and 77- Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 – Section 32 – Maharashtra Revenue Patels (Abolition of Offices) Act, 1962 – The Tenancy Act’s provisions were still applicable to the subject lands, and the legal heirs of the original Watandar could not have taken lawful possession of the lands – The revisionary order dated 03.05.1982 was invalid, and the Bombay High Court justified it – The tenancy was lawfully subsisting on 01.04.1957, and tenants were entitled to exercise their right of statutory purchase under Section 32 of the Tenancy Act – This right became operational on 27.11.1964, when the Watan lands were regranted to the original Watandar’s heirs.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BABAN BALAJI MORE (DEAD) BY LRS. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. BABAJI HARI SHELAR (DEAD) BY LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before :…

Court reasons that transfers are an administrative matter and judicial intervention is limited to cases of statutory violation or proven malafide intent – The Court analyzes precedents stating that transfers should not be interfered with unless they are prejudicial to public interest or violate norms – The Court concludes by setting aside the Division Bench’s judgment, reinstating the Single Judge’s order, and dismissing the writ petition.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SRI PUBI LOMBI Vs. THE STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol, JJ. ) Civil…

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Inherent Powers – Where a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature, is given a cloak of a criminal offence, then such disputes can be quashed, by exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code – High Court must not hesitate in quashing such criminal proceedings which are essentially of a civil nature.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NARESH KUMAR AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prasanna B. Varale,…

Court directs that police reports must comply with Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C, detailing the investigation’s findings and ensuring all required documents and witness statements are included – Mandatory Compliance – The document underscores the importance of strict adherence to the procedural requirements for police reports, with non-compliance to be viewed seriously by the courts

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DABLU KUJUR — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Service Matters

All-India Services (Performance Appraisal Report) Rules, 2007 – Rules 5(1) and 9(7B) – Court concluded that the High Court erred in setting aside the CAT Order and directed the Accepting Authority to decide on the underlying representation within 60 days – The judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to prescribed timelines and the restraint to be exercised by the judiciary in administrative matters involving specialized expertise.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF HARYANA — Appellant Vs. ASHOK KHEMKA AND ANOTHER ( Before : Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

You missed