Latest Post

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. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 415 — Appeal — Maintainability — Conviction recorded for first time by appellate court reversing acquittal — An appeal under Section 374 CrPC (Section 415 BNSS) is not maintainable against a judgment of conviction recorded by a Sessions Court while exercising appellate jurisdiction and reversing an order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court — No such second appeal is contemplated under CrPC or BNSS — The only remedy available is revision under Section 397 r/w 401 CrPC (Section 438 r/w 442 BNSS) Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 44B — “Carriage” of passengers — Meaning and scope of — Cruise operations by non-resident shipping entity — Held, the word “carriage” under Section 44B cannot be restrictively construed to mean movement only from Port A to Port B. A round-trip cruise voyage, where passengers have the option to disembark at intermediate ports without compulsion to return to the originating port, constitutes carriage of passengers within the meaning of Section 44B. Provision of incidental on-board entertainment and hospitality does not alter the essential character of the activity as carriage of passengers. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Quashing of FIR — Scope of inquiry — Mini-trial impermissible — At the stage of considering quashing of an FIR, the Court’s inquiry is confined to whether the allegations, taken at face value, prima facie disclose commission of a cognizable offence — Court cannot conduct a “mini-trial” by sifting evidence, assessing probabilities, or evaluating witness credibility — High Court exceeding these limits by examining trap proceedings, absence of personal recovery, and departmental enquiry findings, held impermissible. Succession Act, 1925 — Sections 33, 35 and 38 — Hindu/Christian Succession — Applicability of S. 33 confined to property owned by deceased male; erroneous application by High Court set aside — Where property was purchased and registered in the joint names of two wives, the same is owned by them and not by the husband, notwithstanding that he provided the consideration — Section 33, which governs devolution on intestacy of a male’s property between his widow and lineal descendants, is not attracted to property never vested in the husband’s name — High Court’s application of S. 33 to the entirety of the suit property held misconceived.

Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Sections 80, 81, 83, 84, 100, 101 and 123 – Corrupt practice – Use of picture of Lord Ayyappa in voting slips – Maintainability of election petition – Non-compliance with the requirements of Section 83 of the Act of 1951 is not fatal, as Section 86(1) thereof only speaks of non-compliance with Sections 81, 82 or 117 being the basis for dismissal of an election petition at the outset

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH K. BABU — Appellant Vs. M. SWARAJ AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

Court is not expected to reject the testimony of an interested witness, however, when the testimony is full of contradictions and fails to match evenly with the supporting evidence (the wound certificate, for instance), a Court is bound to sift and weigh the evidence to test its true weight and credibility – High Court had erred in reversing the decision of acquittal – Acquittal order passed by Trial Court restored – Appellants are acquitted from all the charges – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MALLAPPA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. ) Criminal…

Service Matters

No finding has been recorded by the authorities that the army personnel had as of fact, produced such certificates or that their explanation claiming that no such certificates were furnished by them is completely false – In effect, the authorities have not dealt with the explanations/claims of army personnel – Army personnel shall be reinstated with all consequential benefits – Appeals allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NO.2809759H EX-RECRUIT BABANNA MACHCHED — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.…

Refer a complaint for misconduct to the Disciplinary Committee – Rule 9(3)(b) of the Chartered Accountants (Procedure of Investigation of Professional and Other Misconduct and Conduct of Cases) Rules, 2007 falls within the scope of the general delegation of power under Section 29A(1).

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NARESH CHANDRA AGRAWAL — Appellant Vs. THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and…

Disqualification of Candidate as a Member of Panchayat – Candidate stood automatically disqualified as a Member since he failed to produce the Validity Certificate within 12 months from the date of his election – The protective umbrella of Section 3 of the Temporary Extension Act, 2023 will not be available to candidate since he is hit by Section 3(2)(b), for the reason that there was no valid application pending on the date of the commencement of the said Act.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUDHIR VILAS KALEL AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. BAPU RAJARAM KALEL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.…

It is very difficult to connect any accused with the injuries sustained by the deceased in the absence of any cogent evidence – Therefore, it is not possible to uphold the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC – Conviction and sentence set-aside – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KISHORE AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 – Section 8(2) – Right to pre-emption – It has been issued in exercise of powers conferred under Section 8(2) of the 1913 Act, which enables the State Government to declare by notification either no right of pre-emption or only limited right will exist in any local area or with respect to any land or property or class of land or property – it is abundantly clear that the land and the immovable property are two different terms. The immovable property is more than the land on which certain construction has been made. Guidance can also be taken from the definition of immovable property, as provided in Section 3(26) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which includes land, means something more than the land.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAGMOHAN AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. BADRI NATH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Deposition would reveal that after the other accused assaulted the deceased with sword, A-3 came thereafter and assaulted the deceased with stone lying there – Prosecution has not been in a position to establish that A-3 shared the common intention with the other accused to cause the murder of the deceased – Appeal of A-3 is allowed by altering the conviction under Section 302 to Section 304 Part II IPC.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VELTHEPU SRINIVAS AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (NOW STATE OF TELANGANA) AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai…

Rape with a 7 year old girl in temple – Petitioner-convict was aged 40 years on the date of occurrence and he took the victim to a temple, unmindful of the holiness of the place disrobed her and himself and then committed the crime – in terms of the provisions under Section 376 AB, IPC when a sentence of imprisonment for a term not less than 20 years which may extend upto life imprisonment is imposed, the convict is also liable to suffer a sentence of fine which shall be just and reasonable to meet the medical expenses and rehabilitation of the victim – Conviction under Section 376 AB, IPC was upheld with the sentence modified to 30 years of rigorous imprisonment – Petition partly allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHAGGI @ BHAGIRATH @ NARAN — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal, JJ.…

You missed