Latest Post

Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 — Section 9(2) — “Decree or order” — Whether includes a recovery certificate issued by a Debts Recovery Tribunal under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (pre-2016 amendment) — Held, no — Insolvency Act, being weighed with grave civil consequence of “civil death”, must be strictly construed — Expression “decree or order” must bear the meaning assigned under Ss. 2(2) and 2(14), CPC, requiring adjudication by a “court” in a “suit” — A DRT recovery certificate, not being a decree or order of a court within this meaning, cannot found an insolvency notice under S. 9(2) — Ratio of Paramjeet Singh Patheja v. ICDS Ltd., (2006) 13 SCC 322 (rendered qua arbitral awards) held to rest on a wider principle applicable equally to DRT recovery certificates — Impugned judgment of Division Bench, Bombay High Court, affirming Single Judge’s quashing of insolvency notice, upheld. Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 — Section 47 — Non-discrimination in government employment — Employee acquiring disability during service — Mandatory obligation on employer to shift employee to alternate post with same pay and service benefits, or, failing that, to accommodate on supernumerary post till superannuation — Respondent, a CRPF Constable (Driver), rendered blind/partially blind in 1996 and medically invalidated from service in 1998 without consideration of alternate posting — Held, S. 47 casts a positive and mandatory obligation on employer to protect disabled employee and not await a request for accommodation — Order of medical invalidation dated 11-3-1998 held ultra vires S. 47 and Arts. 14 and 21 of the Constitution — Single Judge’s direction reinstating respondent, upheld by Division Bench, affirmed in principle, though relief modified in view of respondent’s superannuation — Kunal Singh v. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 524; Bhagwan Dass v. Punjab State Electricity Board, (2008) 1 SCC 579; Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal v. Union of India, (2023) 2 SCC 209, relied on. State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 — Sections 29 & 30 — Auction sale of mortgaged property by Financial Corporation for recovery of dues — Judicial review of, scope — Borrowers persistently defaulting over eight years despite multiple opportunities, repayment schedules fixed by High Court, and statutory notices — Financial Corporation auctioning mortgaged property after affording repeated chances including a final 21-day matching offer, which borrowers ignored — Held, fairness required of a Financial Corporation cannot be carried to the extent of disabling it from recovering what is due to it; fairness is not a one-way street — Courts have no say in matters between the Corporation and its debtor except where there is (a) statutory violation, or (b) the Corporation has acted unfairly/unreasonably — Writ court/civil court does not sit as an appellate authority over commercial decisions of the Corporation — Absence of prior valuation report, by itself, held insufficient to vitiate auction where borrowers never objected to the basis of sale (BOS — balance outstanding as on date of possession/sale deed) and themselves sought to retain the property on the very same terms — Concurrent findings of Trial Court and High Court setting aside auction sale, reversed. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Sections 19(1) & 21 — “Knowledge that such an offence has been committed” — Meaning and scope — Held, not confined to direct/personal knowledge of commission of offence based on person’s own senses — Includes awareness founded on receipt of credible information regarding commission of offence punishable under the Act — Where such information is received directly from the victim, capable of communicating/reporting/informing, the same is deemed credible — Restrictive construction confining “knowledge” to direct, sensory knowledge would render sub-sections (5) & (6) of S. 19 and R. 4 of POCSO Rules, 2012 non-functional, and defeat the protective purpose of the Act — Person receiving report from victim not obliged to independently verify or investigate truth of allegation before reporting — Conducting a prior “verification exercise” to ascertain correctness of the child’s complaint, and reporting only if own assessment finds signs of assault, is impermissible and defeats the very purpose of the Act, since it may result in disappearance of evidence and delay — Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 — Section 14(1)(b) — Subletting, assignment or parting with possession — Whether involuntary transfer pursuant to statutory scheme of bank amalgamation attracts the provision — Original tenant-bank (HCB) amalgamated with another bank (PNB) pursuant to a Scheme framed by RBI and notified by the Central Government under S. 45 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 — Consequent thereto, HCB ceased to exist and all its rights, including tenancy rights in the demised premises, vested in PNB, which came into possession without the landlord’s written consent — Held, S. 14(1)(b) is of wide amplitude, covering subletting, assignment, and “any other mode” by which possession is parted with, and does not distinguish between voluntary and involuntary transfers — Once the twin ingredients — transfer of tenancy rights/possession, and absence of the landlord’s written consent — are satisfied, the provision is attracted irrespective of the reasons necessitating the transfer — Contention that a statutory amalgamation stands outside the mischief of the provision, rejected

Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 — Section 9(2) — “Decree or order” — Whether includes a recovery certificate issued by a Debts Recovery Tribunal under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (pre-2016 amendment) — Held, no — Insolvency Act, being weighed with grave civil consequence of “civil death”, must be strictly construed — Expression “decree or order” must bear the meaning assigned under Ss. 2(2) and 2(14), CPC, requiring adjudication by a “court” in a “suit” — A DRT recovery certificate, not being a decree or order of a court within this meaning, cannot found an insolvency notice under S. 9(2) — Ratio of Paramjeet Singh Patheja v. ICDS Ltd., (2006) 13 SCC 322 (rendered qua arbitral awards) held to rest on a wider principle applicable equally to DRT recovery certificates — Impugned judgment of Division Bench, Bombay High Court, affirming Single Judge’s quashing of insolvency notice, upheld.

Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 — Section 47 — Non-discrimination in government employment — Employee acquiring disability during service — Mandatory obligation on employer to shift employee to alternate post with same pay and service benefits, or, failing that, to accommodate on supernumerary post till superannuation — Respondent, a CRPF Constable (Driver), rendered blind/partially blind in 1996 and medically invalidated from service in 1998 without consideration of alternate posting — Held, S. 47 casts a positive and mandatory obligation on employer to protect disabled employee and not await a request for accommodation — Order of medical invalidation dated 11-3-1998 held ultra vires S. 47 and Arts. 14 and 21 of the Constitution — Single Judge’s direction reinstating respondent, upheld by Division Bench, affirmed in principle, though relief modified in view of respondent’s superannuation — Kunal Singh v. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 524; Bhagwan Dass v. Punjab State Electricity Board, (2008) 1 SCC 579; Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal v. Union of India, (2023) 2 SCC 209, relied on.

“Commercial Purpose” – Even purchases in certain situations for ‘commercial purposes’ would not take within its sweep the purchaser out of the definition of expression ‘consumer’ -if the commercial use is by the purchaser himself for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment, such purchaser of goods would continue to be a ‘consumer’.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ROHIT CHAUDHARY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M/S VIPUL LTD. — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar, JJ. ) Civil…

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 2(b) – wilful breach or disobedience of the same would amount to “civil contempt” – There ought not to be a tendency by courts, to show compassion when disobedience of an undertaking or an order is with impunity and with total consciousness.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BALWANTBHAI SOMABHAI BHANDARI — Appellant Vs. HIRALAL SOMABHAI CONTRACTOR (DECEASED) REP. BY LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj…

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Section 4 – Punishment for money laundering – Bail – As a result, the respondents argue that this money is the proceeds of a criminal activity – Appellant being accused of possessing Rs. 30 lakh in his bank account, it’s important to note that this money was deposited on January 24, 2022, which precedes the alleged illegal activity

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BACHHU YADAV — Appellant Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT GOVERNMENT OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (PMLA) AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before :…

JK NC was entitled to the “plough” symbol and set aside the LADHC election notification S.O.53 published vide No.Secy/Election/2023/290-301 dated 05.08.2023 – A fresh Notification shall be issued within seven days from today for elections to constitute the 5th Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council, Kargil – R1 is declared entitled to the exclusive allotment of the Plough symbol for candidates proposed to be put up by it.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION TERRITORY OF LADAKH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. JAMMU AND KASHMIR NATIONAL CONFERENCE AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and…

Circumstantial evidence, it’s essential to establish a complete chain of circumstances to prove the accused’s guilt and rule out alternative explanations – Sustaining a conviction based on incomplete evidence is deemed unsafe – Additionally, the legal presumption favors the accused, and in cases of doubt, the benefit goes to the accused, not the prosecution

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH R. SREENIVASA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 859…

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Sections 138 and 142 – Dishonour of Cheque – – The limitation period, as per Article 34 of the Limitation Act, begins when the fixed time expires, in this case, December 2016 – Therefore, the cheque, dated April 28, 2017, falls within the limitation period –

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH K. HYMAVATHI — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : A.S. Bopanna and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.…

Himachal Pradesh Passengers and Goods Taxation Act, 1955 – appellants are public sector organizations providing free transportation to their employees and their children in remote hilly areas for safety reasons, and recognizing that a substantial amount of time has passed since the enactment of the Amendment and Validation Act of 1997 (approximately twenty-six years), and that the appellants may have replaced their motor vehicles or buses during this time, the appellants should be liable to pay the tax starting from April 1, 2023, the current financial year onwards, and not for the period before that.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NHPC LTD. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SECRETARY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan,…

In this case, the appellant and the deceased were in a romantic relationship – However, when the deceased stopped communicating with the appellant, the appellant became upset – There was an altercation between them, witnessed by the deceased’s mother – conviction under Section 302 of the IPC is alter to Section 304 part II, and the appellant is sentenced to the period of imprisonment already served – If not needed in any other case, the appellant shall be released immediately – Appeal partly allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH N. RAMKUMAR — Appellant Vs. THE STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar, JJ.…

You missed