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.

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)- Sections 302, 376, 511, 454, 380 read with Section 34 – Murder and attempt to rape – Order of acquittal reversed by High Court – Appeal – Double Presumption – Non-Examination of Material Witnesses – When a circumstance has been brought to the notice of the Court by the defense and the Court is convinced that a prosecution witness has been deliberately withheld, as it in all probability would destroy its version, it has to take adverse notice – Anything contrary to such an approach would be an affront to the concept of fair play – Appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt as the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction and sentence set-aside – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HARVINDER SINGH @ BACHHU — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : M.M. Sundresh and J.B. Pardiwala, JJ. )…

Allotment of plot – Public auction – Defaults and failure to pay installment/balance payment – Earnest money paid by the respondent will be forfeited and will not be refunded – Rs.4,15,000/- (Rupees four lakhs fifteen thousand only), less the earnest money deposited by Respondent, will be refunded to him with simple interest at the rate of 8% per annum with effect from 01.01.2001

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAMMU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — Appellant Vs. S. PARAMJEET SINGH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ. ) Civil…

Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 15 (2), 17, 23 and 24 – Directions to Union of India and all the States and Union Territories to implement provisions of the Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act, 1993 and Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and Their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 – Union and States are duty bound to ensure that the practice of manual scavenging is completely eradicated

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DR. BALRAM SINGH — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar, JJ. )…

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 19(6) – Environment Protection Act, 1986 – Section 5 – Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016 – Order of ban on ‘reinforced’ paper cups is upheld and in the matter of ban non-woven plastic bags, back to Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) for consideration – However, given that there is scientific basis for the ban, and it is the State Government’s policy decision to ban numerous categories of single use plastic products, in public interest, there is little room or reason, for this court to interfere on the ground of merits of the ban

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH TAMIL NADU AND PUDUCHERRY PAPER CUP MANUFACTURES ASSOCIATION — Appellant Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra…

Service Matters

Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 – Rule 14(b) – Appointment – Post of Police Constable – Suppression of information – A candidate for recruitment to a disciplined force, the non-disclosure of the information of his involvement in the criminal case and subsequent acquittal therefrom cast a serious doubt upon his character and the antecedents which is sufficient enough to disentitle him from employment – Candidate not disclosed the complete information with regard to his involvement in a criminal case, wherein he might have been acquitted earlier even before verification, he cannot escape the guilt of suppressing the material information – Candidate not be entitled to appointment.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE TAMILNADU, MYLAPORE — Appellant Vs. J. RAGHUNEES — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.…

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 311 of course, does not intend to fill the lacunae in the prosecution’s case and cause any serious prejudice to the rights of an accused – If a witness turns hostile for extenuating reasons and is reluctant to depose the unvarnished truth, it will cause irreversible damage to the administration of justice and the faith of the society at large in the efficacy and credibility of the criminal justice system will stand eroded and shattered – Power to recall witnesses under Section 311 CrPC ought to be exercised sparingly and mere hostility by a witness, per se, would not be a sufficient ground to infer misuse of concession of bail.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MUNILAKSHMI — Appellant Vs. NARENDRA BABU AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 3297…

Cancellation of Bail – If it is found that an undertrial has attempted to misuse the concession of bail either by influencing the witnesses or tampering with the evidence or trying to flee from justice, such person can be committed to custody by withdrawing the concession of bail.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MUNILAKSHMI — Appellant Vs. NARENDRA BABU AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 3297…

You missed