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.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Sections 13(1) and 13(1A) – Grant of Decree of divorce – Denial of – The parties in question have been living apart for fifteen years -there is no reason to prolong the distress of maintaining a marital status when they are not living together – In light of the mentioned reasons, the judgment of the Trial Court and the subsequent confirmation by the High Court is hereby overturned – As a result, the appeal is accepted, and a divorce decree is granted.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SMT. ROOPA SONI — Appellant Vs. KAMALNARAYAN SONI — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and M. M. Sundresh, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

Service Matters

Punjab Police Rules, 1934 – Rule 12.21 and 16.24 – Discharge of Inefficients – Case involving the discharge of a constable from the Punjab Police force – The constable, ‘J’, was discharged during his probation period due to prolonged absence without any intimation – The Supreme Court examined the relevant rules and held that ‘J’ discharge was justified as he was found unlikely to become an efficient police officer.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. JASWANT SINGH — Respondent ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. ) Civil…

Penal Code, 1860 – 120B, 409, 411, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 474 – Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 – Sections 4, 5, and 6 – Interlocutory applications filed by accused individuals seeking bail – the court agrees with the prosecution that the applicants should approach jurisdictional courts rather than seeking relief from the higher court – However, the court extends the interim bail granted to the applicants for three months to enable them to seek bail from the concerned courts.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PACL — Appellant Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION — Respondent ( Before : A. S. Bopanna and M. M. Sundresh, JJ. ) IA. No.…

Even in a case where the final report of the police under Section 173 is accepted and the accused persons are discharged, the Magistrate has the power to take cognizance of the offence on a complaint or a Protest Petition on the same or similar allegations even after the acceptance of the final report

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ZUNAID — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi and Dipankar Datta, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Delhi Development Act, 1957 – Section 57 – Claim for interest – the court finds that the circumstances of the deposit did not involve any loss due to the “Act of Court” and that the notification was in force when the deposit was made – Therefore, the court rejects the claim for interest – The appellants are advised to pursue remedies for their subsequent losses separately.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LAL BAHADUR SHASTRI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.S. Bopanna and Prashant…

An order of detention under section 3(1) of the Act can only be issued against a detenu to prevent him “from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order”. “Public order” is defined in the Explanation to section 2(a) of the Act as encompassing situations that cause “harm, danger or alarm or a feeling of insecurity among the general public or any section thereof or a grave wide-spread danger to life or public health” – Order of detention quashed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AMEENA BEGUM — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta, JJ. ) Criminal…

You missed