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.

IBC, 2016 – S 5(24) – ‘related party’ – ‘related party’ regarding an individual includes someone who is a relative of the individual or a relative of the individual’s spouse – Additionally, if an individual is a director of a private or public company and, along with relatives, holds more than two percent of the company’s share capital or paid-up share capital, that company is considered a ‘related party.’ – The explanation also specifies that both maternal and paternal uncles fall under the definition of ‘related party.’

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH EVA AGRO FEEDS PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : B. V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan,…

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 13(2) – Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 – Section 6A – the declaration made by the Constitution Bench in the case of Subramanian Swamy vs. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2014) 8 SCC 682, will have retrospective operation – Section 6A of the DSPE Act is held to be not in force from the date of its insertion i.e. 11.09.2003.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH CBI — Appellant Vs. R.R. KISHORE — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, Abhay S. Oka, Vikram Nath and J.K. Maheshwari,…

Section 15 of the IBC and Regulation 6 of the IBBI Regulations mandate a public announcement of the CIRP through newspapers – This would constitute deemed knowledge on the appellant – In any case, their plea of not being aware of newspaper pronouncements is not one which should be available to a commercial party.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. RPS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. — Appellant Vs. MUKUL KUMAR AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ. )…

“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…

You missed