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 and 201 read with Section 34 – Murder – Acquittal – Lack of proper test identification parade – Non-examination of key eyewitness who was present when the accused and deceased were last seen together – It becomes very doubtful as the accused was shown to the witness in the office of the Superintendent of Police, only with a view to see that he identifies the accused in the court – This procedure is not known to law – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appeal allowed.

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

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Writ Jurisdiction – Existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar on exercise of writ jurisdiction – One such compelling reason may arise where there is a serious dispute between the parties on a question of fact and materials/evidence(s) available on record are insufficient/inconclusive to enable the Court to come to a definite conclusion.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. EHSAN AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Manoj Misra, JJ. )…

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 243W – Exemption from service tax – Going by the golden rule of interpretation that words should be read in their ordinary, natural, and grammatical meaning, the word “or” in clause 2(s) clearly appears to us to have been used to reflect the ordinary and normal sense, that is to denote an alternative, giving a choice; and, this court cannot assign it a different meaning unless it leads to vagueness or makes clause 2(s) absolutely unworkable.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH COMMISSIONER, CUSTOMS CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, PATNA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M/S SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND COMPANY PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS — Respondent…

(SARFAESI) – Section 13(8) – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 60 – Redemption of mortgage – Failure on the part of the borrower in tendering the entire dues including the charges, interest, costs etc. before the publication of the auction notice as required by Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, would also sufficiently constitute extinguishment of right of redemption of mortgage

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CELIR LLP — Appellant Vs. BAFNA MOTORS (MUMBAI) PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI. and J.B.…

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 313 – Examination of an accused – – But where there has been a failure in putting those circumstances to the accused, the same would not ipso facto vitiate the trial unless it is shown that its non-compliance has prejudiced the accused – Where there is a delay in raising the plea, or the plea is raised for the first time in this Court, it could be assumed that no prejudice had been felt by the accused

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUNIL — Appellant Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI — Respondent ( Before : Hrishikesh Roy and Manoj Misra, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…

Service Matters

Acquittal in POCSO cases cannot be treated as a clean acquittal when prosecutrix and witnesses cited by the prosecution turned hostile, the trial Court passed an order, acquitting the respondent of the charges framed under Section 354(D) of the IPC and Section 11 (D)/12 of the POCSO Act – Appointment to post of police constable unsuitable.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. BHUPENDRA YADAV — Respondent ( Before : Hima Kohli and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. )…

Certified copy of sale deed – Admissibility – Certified copy given under Section 57 of the Registration Act shall be admissible for the purpose of proving the contents of its original document – Certified copy issued thereunder is not a copy of the original document, but is a copy of the registration entry which is itself a copy of the original and is a public document under Section 74(2) of the Evidence Act and Sub-section (5) thereof, makes it admissible in evidence for proving the contents of its original.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH APPAIYA — Appellant Vs. ANDIMUTHU@ THANGAPANDI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 14630…

Service Matters

Absorption as Assistant Teacher – Res judicata – claim for absorption as an assistant teacher in the Higher Secondary Section is clearly barred by constructive res judicata – Plea of res judicata applies, except in special cases, not only to points upon which the Court was actually required by the parties to form an opinion and pronounce a judgment, but to every point which properly belonged to the subject of litigation, and which the parties, exercising reasonable diligence, might have brought forward at the time.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SAMIR KUMAR MAJUMDER — Appellant Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. )…

You missed