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.

(IPC) – Sections 307, 323 and 324 – Attempt to murder – Intention of the accused can be ascertained from the actual injury, if any, as well as from surrounding circumstances – the injuries on complainant and his mother have been found to be simple in nature, which is an additional point in the appellants’ favour – Only offences under Sections 323 and 324 of the IPC can be made out – Conviction under Section 307, IPC is unsustainable

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SIVAMANI AND DINESH KUMAR — Appellant Vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ.…

(CrPC) – Section 313 – NDPS,1985 – Indeed, the appellant may not have earlier raised the issue regarding the inadequacy of examination under Section 313 of CrPC – However, in this case, the omission goes to the root of the matter as far as the appellant is concerned – Appellant has undergone incarceration of five and a half years – If, after the lapse of more than twenty­two years, he is again subjected to examination under Section 313 of CrPC, it will cause prejudice to him – Appellant’s conviction cannot be sustained – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NABABUDDIN @ MALLU @ ABHIMANYU — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. )…

Quashing of FIR – Mixing hydrocarbons in different proportions by using mixing machines create a mixture that looks exactly like petrol and diesel – Non-production an expert’s report -Unless there was a material forming part of the charge­sheet to show the nature of the liquid, no offence is made out – Now, it is too late for the State to file a report after a gap of more than two years – FIR quashed – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SURESH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. ) Criminal…

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 80HHC – Claim for deduction -The assessee’s attempt to broaden the deduction sources is considered impermissible, as strict interpretation aligns with specific terms in Section 80HHC – Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 80HHC emphasize that deductions are intended exclusively for profits derived from exporting goods and merchandise outside India, and including other income contradicts the section’s intended scope and purpose – Appeal Dismissed

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHAH ORIGINALS — Appellant Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-24, MUMBAI — Respondent ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 – Section 16 – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Section 25 – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 – Rule 12 – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 – Murder – – the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302 and 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, but all the sentences which have been awarded to him are hereby quashed as such sentences cannot be given to a juvenile, in view of Section 16 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 – The appeal is partially allowed concerning the issue of juvenility – The High Court’s order is modified accordingly.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PAWAN KUMAR — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ. )…

Held, the appellant may have accidentally caused the death of the deceased while intoxicated, there is no evidence to prove that the appellant, due to intoxication – The absence of such evidence, combined with the appellant not claiming to have been intoxicated against his will, leads to the conclusion that Section 86 of the (IPC) does not apply – Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to a reduction of the sentence from Section 302 IPC (murder) to a charge falling under Part II of Section 304 IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) – Appeal Dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NANHE — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 2791…

You missed