Latest Post

Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 — Section 8(3) — Unauthorized alienation of minor’s property — Such alienation is voidable, not void ab initio, and can be challenged by the minor upon attaining majority or by someone claiming under the minor. Criminal Procedure — Delay in Investigation and Filing of Charge Sheet — Speedy Trial — Right to Speedy Trial and Timely Completion of Investigation are integral parts of Article 21 of the Constitution — Statutory recognition in CrPC for prompt investigation — Investigations should be completed within a reasonable time, not endlessly — Lack of strict timelines in CrPC does not permit indefinite investigations — Inordinate delay without adequate justification warrants intervention by Courts. Contract Law — Statutory Amendment — Impact on existing contracts — Where a statutory amendment alters a fundamental aspect like royalty rates, a pre-existing contract cannot prevent the application of the amended law, especially when the payment of royalty is linked to the removal or consumption of minerals — [MMDR Act] Applicability of S.9 — Scope — Section 9 applies broadly to all entities engaged in removal/dispatch of minerals, not only direct mining lessees. Criminal Procedure — Passport — Return/Surrender of Passport — Accused facing serious criminal charges — Right to travel abroad vis-à-vis right to speedy trial — Balance between individual liberty and societal interest — Accused charged with abetment of suicide and criminal conspiracy since 2014, trial still at stage of committal despite lapse of over ten years — Accused, a US citizen, had misused interim protection in prior proceedings to leave the country without Court’s leave — Whether High Court justified in permitting accused to travel abroad on grounds of medical treatment — Held, not justified — High Court indulgent rather than judicially restrained — Medical facilities in India comparable to those abroad — High Court’s revisional order set aside — Accused restrained from travelling abroad without express permission of Sessions Court — Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, S. 442 — Constitution of India, Art. 21 Service Law — Promotion — Entitlement to promotion to Chief Medical Director (Higher Administrative Grade) in Indian Railway Medical Service — Appellant was denied promotion despite being eligible, with a junior officer being promoted instead — Appellant’s case was rejected by the Tribunal and High Court based on her grading in Annual Confidential Reports

Interpretation of Contract – A commercial document cannot be interpreted in a manner that is at odds with the original purpose and intendment of the parties to the document – A deviation from the plain terms of the contract is warranted only when it serves business efficacy better.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. RATNAGIRI GAS AND POWER PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya…

Service Matters

Service Law – Relaxation – Eligibility qualifications – State had power to relax the eligibility criteria, the same could not have been done mid-stream without giving wide publicity of such change, and opportunity to similarly situated candidates to apply and compete with others

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANKITA THAKUR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE H.P. STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Manoj Misra and Hrishikesh Roy,…

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 32 – Writ Petition – Direction to expeditious disposal of criminal cases against elected members of the Parliament and Legislative Assemblies HELD Learned Chief Justices of the High Courts shall register a suo-motu case with the title, “In Re: designated courts for MPs/MLAs” to monitor early disposal of criminal cases pending against the members of Parliament and Legislative Assemblies – The suo-motu case may be heard by the Special Bench presided by the Learned Chief Justice or a bench assigned by them.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI., Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Evidence Act, 1972 – Section 32 – Murder by poisoning – Dying declaration – A statement made by a person who is dying is made exception to the rule of hearsay and has been made admissible in evidence under Section 32 of the Evidence Act, it would not be prudent to base conviction, relying upon such dying declaration alone – Conviction and sentence set-aside – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HARIPRASAD @ KISHAN SAHU — Appellant Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi and Dipankar Datta, JJ. ) Criminal…

Employees Provident Fund And Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 – Section 1(3)(B) – Establishments of factories – Clause (a) of sub-Section (3) is applicable only to those factories engaged in any industry specified in Schedule I – Clause (b) of sub-Section (3) is applicable to all other establishments which are not covered by clause (a) of sub-Section (3) provided such establishments are notified by a notification issued by the Central Government which is published in the official Gazette

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THANKAMMA BABY — Appellant Vs. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, KOCHI, KERALA — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, JJ.…

Service Matters

Forfeiture of gratuity – Compulsory retirement; removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment and dismissal which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment are distinct and separate punishments – Act of forfeiture of gratuity is not envisaged as the provisions are silent on the aspect of forfeiture in case of compulsory retirement.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JYOTIRMAY RAY — Appellant Vs. THE FIELD GENERAL MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and K.V. Viswanathan,…

As to procedural unconscionability, the Court finds that this was a contract of adhesion. The terms of the contract were not negotiated and Plaintiff had relatively little economic strength in the transaction. As to substantive unconscionability, the arbitration clause is unreasonable insofar as it requires Plaintiff to travel to Okaloosa County, Florida for the arbitration. In many circumstances requiring a consumer to travel a substantial distance to arbitrate a claim has been found to be unreasonable

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH LOMBARDI ENGINEERING LIMITED — Appellant Vs. UTTARAKHAND JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI., J.B. Pardiwala and…

Criminal Law – Acquittal – Presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is bolstered if the trial court hands down an acquittal – A Court of Appeal should be circumspect in overturning its judgment of acquittal, is not a principle that requires reiteration – Time and again that an acquittal will only be overturned in the presence of very compelling reasons.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANJUNATH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

You missed