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.
Service Matters

Service Law – Appointment – Post of Village Development Officers – A candidate/applicant has to comply with all the conditions/eligibility criteria as per the advertisement before the cut-off date mentioned therein unless extended by the recruiting authority – Advertisement clearly specified the essential qualification was a Course of Computer Concept Certificate – Appellants despite opportunity to appear to show such equivalence, having failed to do so, nothing survives on this count – Appeal dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUDHIR SINGH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. )…

Execution of decree – All questions between the parties can be decided by the executing court – But the important aspect to remember is that these questions are limited to the “execution of the decree” – Executing court can never go behind the decree – Under Section 47, CPC the executing court cannot examine the validity of the order of the court which had allowed the execution of the decree in 2013, unless the court’s order is itself without jurisdiction.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRADEEP MEHRA — Appellant Vs. HARIJIVAN J. JETHWA (SINCE DECEASED THR. LRS.) AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu…

Service Matters

Kerala Irrigation Engineering Service Special Rules, 2010 – Challenge to antedating of a seniority list – Not find that any case has been made out for interference in appeal for the reason that appellant has not been able to demonstrate that for the purpose of promotion from the post of Assistant Engineer to that of Assistant Executive Engineer, he was likely to be affected by antedating the date of promotion of the private respondents as separate quotas had been prescribed for promotion to the next higher post for the categories of Graduate Engineers and Diploma Holders

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH C. ANIL CHANDRAN — Appellant Vs. M.K. RAGHAVAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hima Kohli and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

We are not inclined to proceed further with the present writ petition, as it is clear from the counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 2 – Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) that the cellular mobile telephone number once deactivated for non-usage or disconnected on the request of subscriber, is not allocated to the new subscriber for at least a period of 90 days. It is for the earlier subscriber to take adequate steps to ensure that privacy is maintained.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJESWARI — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ. ) Writ Petition (Civil)…

HELD The affidavit further states that following the practice of the NCLAT, the deponent did not entertain any attempt at mentioning by the counsel and that the order of this Court dated 13 October 2023 was not on the record before the Bench presided by the deponent on 13 October 2023. What the affidavit does not state is that a conscious effort was made by the Bench to prevent the order of this Court being placed on the record despite the fact that the court was apprised of the passing of the order by this Court in the morning session. We censure the conduct of the Member

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ORBIT ELECTRICALS PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. DEEPAK KISHAN CHHABRIA AND OTHERS ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI., J B Pardiwala and…

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 389(1) – Appeal for suspension of sentence is pending – Bail Canceled by High Court – Appeal – Under no circumstances, the bail granted to an accused under sub-section 1 of Section 389 can be cancelled without giving a reasonable opportunity to the accused of being heard – Under sub-section 1 of Section 389, while suspending the sentence of the appellant-accused who is in Jail, the Appellate Court has to enlarge the accused on bail till the final disposal of the appeal – Second proviso to sub-section 1 of Section 389 permits the Public Prosecutor to file an application for cancellation of the bail granted under sub-section 1 –

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PURUSHOTHAMAN — Appellant Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S.Oka and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 3341…

You missed