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

Service Law – Merging of staff from one department to another – Order for merging Adult Education Department staff into Education Department, providing category-wise seniority – The High Court ruled that merging cadres is a policy decision and cannot be interfered with -The State’s actions have been delayed by promotions and retirements, resulting in a lack of service for many – The High Court’s judgment is upheld, and the appeals are dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRAFFUL SHUKLA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. GOVERNMENT OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal,…

Jogighopa (Assam) Unit of Ashok Paper Mills Limited (Acquisition Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1990, is not governed by the prescription of limitation under Article 116 of the Limitation Act, 1963 – In the absence of any particular period of time being prescribed to file an appeal, the same would be governed by the principle of ‘reasonable time’, for which, by virtue of its very nature, no straitjacket formula can be laid down and it is to be determined as per the facts and

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S NORTH EASTERN CHEMICALS INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M/S ASHOK PAPER MILL(ASSAM) LTD. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before :…

Multiplicity of proceedings will not be in the larger public interest and State also – It appropriate to exercise power conferred under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to accede to the relief claimed to the extent of consolidation of the FIRs registered in the State of Madhya Pradesh for being tried together as one trial as far as possible.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AMANAT ALI — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Aravind Kumar, JJ. ) Writ Petition…

West Bengal Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Identification) Act, 1994 – Section 8A – Cancellation of caste certificate – Jurisdiction of State Scrutiny Committee – HELD the fact remains that it being a procedural law and the matter being still pending before the Committee to be decided on merits after it had opined that the Committee had jurisdiction to deal with even the cases of caste certificate, it could very well be examined by the Committee at this stage – In the view of that matter, it should have been sent back to the Committee only

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S DARVELL INVESTMENT AND LEASING (INDIA) PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before…

HELD “as the doctor has not certified that the deceased was fit enough to give a statement when Surjit Singh (PW-10) allegedly recorded her dying declaration, the same will have to be discarded. He urged that the first dying declaration has been made before Dr. Manvir Gupta (PW-13), who was the prosecution witness. He stated that the deceased disclosed to him that she herself consumed the aluminium phosphide tablets” the case made out by the prosecution is not free from doubt and, therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the guilt of the appellant has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SURJIT SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S.Oka and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 565…

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 370 – Abrogation of Special Status for Jammu and Kashmir upheld – State of Jammu and Kashmir does not have ‘internal sovereignty’ which is distinguishable from the powers and privileges enjoyed by other States in the country – Article 370 was a feature of asymmetric federalism and not sovereignty.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CONSTITUTION BENCH IN RE: ARTICLE 370 OF THE CONSTITUTION ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, B R Gavai, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna and Surya…

Gujarat Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 – Sections 2(4) and 31(2) – Eviction – having purchased the land in the year 2007 after parting with valuable consideration, the appellant cannot be condemned without providing him a full opportunity to put forth his case with supporting evidence – Accordingly, This Court allow this appeal and set aside the orders passed by the Gujarat High Court as well as the orders passed by the authorities and remand the matter for consideration afresh on facts and law.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KANAIYALAL MAFATLAL PATEL — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravi Kumar and Sanjay Kumar, JJ.…

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 2(1)(h) read with Section 7 – Arbitration Proceedings – Applicability of Group of Companies Doctrine – Group of Companies doctrine is applicable to arbitration proceedings – Definition of “parties” under Section 2(1)(h) read with Section 7 of the Arbitration Act includes both the signatory as well as non-signatory parties

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CONSTITUTION BENCH COX AND KINGS LTD. — Appellant Vs. SAP INDIA PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI., Hrishikesh…

You missed