Latest Post

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 168 — Just Compensation — Award of compensation for prosthetic limb — No fixed guidelines for compensation amount — Courts can deviate from governmental notifications if they are too low — Emphasis on “restitutio in integrum” principle to restore the claimant as close as possible to their pre-injury state — Claimants are entitled to choose private centres for prosthetic limbs and renewal costs should be considered — Compensation can be awarded for periodic replacement and maintenance of prosthetic limbs. Dispute over cadre change versus mere transfer — A transfer is a change of posting within the same service without altering seniority or substantive status, differing from a cadre change which involves a structural shift between services with significant implications for seniority and promotional avenues, requiring specific authority. Evidence Act, 1872 — Eyewitness testimony vs. Medical evidence — In case of conflict, eyewitness testimony, especially of an injured witness who is found to be reliable and has withstood cross — examination, is generally superior to expert medical opinion formed by an expert witness — Lack of independent witnesses does not automatically compromise the prosecution case, especially when societal realities suggest potential fear or hesitation Protracted Government Inaction and Third — Party Rights — Despite an initial timeline of two months for an inquiry and subsequent hopes for completion within six months, the government showed significant delay, stretching over six years without a final decision — During this period, extensive third — party rights were created through land sales and construction of villas and flats by innocent purchasers — The Court observed that it’s inappropriate for a welfare state to attempt to undo decades — old transactions, especially when innocent citizens have invested their hard — earned money, and basic amenities should not be denied to occupants of constructed properties. Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 vs. Government Grants Act, 1895 — Relationship Governed by Grant — A lease originating from a Government grant, as governed by the Government Grants Act, 1895, is not subject to the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 — The incidence and enforceability of such a grant are governed solely by its tenor — The legal character of the grant does not derive from conventional landlord — tenant relationships but from the sovereign grant and its embedded conditions — Therefore, eviction proceedings under the Delhi Rent Control Act are not maintainable for holdings originating from a Government grant.

Request for recall of the appellant as a witness under Section 311, CrPC was justified, as at the relevant point of time in his initial deposition, there was no occasion for him to bring the relevant facts relating to similarity of data before the Court, which arose after the CFSL expert was examined.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SATBIR SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ahsanuddin Amanullah and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Even in a case where the final report of the police under Section 173 is accepted and the accused persons are discharged, the Magistrate has the power to take cognizance of the offence on a complaint or a Protest Petition on the same or similar allegations even after the acceptance of the final report – Magistrate is not debarred from taking cognizance of a complaint merely on the ground that earlier he had declined to take cognizance of the police report

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ZUNAID — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi and Dipankar Datta, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Service Matters

Appellant continues to work as a lecturer in English on a half time basis – Therefore, for doing substantial justice, this is a fit case to invoke power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India for continuing her appointment on full time basis – Direction issued to State Government to release grant-in aid for paying salary.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VIJAYA BHIKU KADAM — Appellant Vs. MAYANI BHAG SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol,…

Hindu Succession Act 1956 – Essential ingredient of Section 14 subsection (1) is possession over the property – Possession being a prerequisite to sustain a claim under subsection (1) of Section 14 of the 1956 Act – Admittedly the plaintiff was never in possession of the property – Appeal dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M. SIVADASAN (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. A. SOUDAMINI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar…

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 432 – Remission of sentence – Overemphasis on the presiding judge’s opinion and complete disregard of comments of other authorities, while arriving at its conclusion, would render the appropriate government’s decision on a remission application, unsustainable

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJO @ RAJWA @ RAJENDRA MANDAL — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and…

Remarks by a court should at all times be governed by the principles of justice, fair play and restraint – Words employed should reflect sobriety, moderation and reserve – It should not be lost sight of and per contra, always be remembered that such remarks, “due to the great power vested in our robes, have the ability to jeopardize and compromise independence of judges”

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M/S. SHIKHA TRADING COMPANY — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, JJ.…

Service Matters

Increase/Enhancement of Retirement age – Retired Employees cannot claim a vested right to apply the extended age of retirement to them retrospectively and assume that by virtue of the enhancement in age ordered by the State at a later date, they would be entitled to all the benefits including the monetary benefits flowing from G.O. dated 9th April, 2012, on the ground of legitimate expectation

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DR. PRAKASAN M.P. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Hima Kohli and Rajesh Bindal, JJ.…

You missed