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.

Not finding of material to satisfy that release of the Appellant on bail shall be a liberty to the Appellant to influence the witnesses or there is any danger of justice being thwarted by such order being passed – In agreement with the ultimate view of the High Court – Order granting bail is upheld – Appeal dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH XXX — Appellant Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR ISLANDS AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ.…

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 – Majority award – A dissenting opinion cannot be treated as an award if the majority award is set aside – When a majority award is challenged by the aggrieved party, the focus of the court and the aggrieved party is to point out the errors or illegalities in the majority award

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. M/S NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Aravind…

Service Matters

Service Law – Disciplinary proceedings – Penalty Order – Unless punishment imposed is only co-relatable to any of those charges found not proved, the penalty cannot be set aside – Scope of judicial review against a departmental enquiry proceeding is very limited – It is not in the nature of an appeal and a review on merits of the decision is not permissible

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE BANK OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. A.G.D. REDDY — Respondent ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is a complete code for resolving all disputes, including against strangers to the decree. – The Executing Court could not have dismissed the execution petition by treating the decree to be inexecutable merely on the basis that the decree-holder has lost possession to a third party/encroacher.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SMT. VED KUMARI (DEAD THROUGH HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE) DR. VIJAY AGARWAL — Appellant Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER — Respondent (…

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Section 5 – Cancellation of bail – Gang-rape of a 15-year-old girl, threat of making video of rape recorded viral and extortion – Accused is the son of sitting MLA would disclose the domineering influence he would wield not only in delaying the proceedings but also in pressurizing the witnesses to either resile from their statement given during the course of investigation or pose threat to them from deposing against accused on their failure to act according to his dictates or induce them to testify as per his dictates or to help the defence of the accused – Bail cancelled – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHAGWAN SINGH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. DILIP KUMAR @ DEEPU @ DEPAK AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and…

There is no hard and fast rule for determining when a dying declaration should be accepted; the duty of the Court is to decide this question in the facts and surrounding circumstances of the case and be fully convinced of the truthfulness of the same – although the accused has been named in the two dying declarations as a person who set the room on fire yet the surrounding circumstances render such statement of the declarants very doubtful – Appellant directed to be released – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH IRFAN @ NAKA — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai, J.B. Pardiwala and Prashant Kumar Mishra,…

Employees Compensation Act, 1923 – Compensation – the driver was consistently driving the vehicle, there is every reason to assume that long spells of driving was a material contributory factor, if not the sole cause that accelerated his unexpected death at a young age – Such an untoward mishap can reasonably be described as an accident, only attributable to the nature of employment – Compensation granted.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SMT. DARIYAO KANWAR & OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Hima Kohli and…

Incremental value of land from admitted or proved exemplars till the acquisition is evident – CLU certificate discharges the initial burden of establishing that the land under acquisition is not agricultural land – Therefore, apply the standard deduction 1/3 on exemplar value and are not persuaded to factor incremental increase on the exemplar – Market value of the lands Increased – Appeals allowed in part.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BESCO LIMITED — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Partner in firm – Powers u/s 482 of the Cr P C can be exercised by the High Court in case when it comes across unimpeachable and incontrovertible evidence to indicate that the partner of the firm did not have any concern with the issuance of cheques – The case in hand is not of that kind – Impugned order passed by the High Court quashing the summoning order and the complaints against the respondent are set aside – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RIYA BAWRI ETC. — Appellant Vs. MARK ALEXANDER DAVIDSON & OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hima Kohli and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Criminal…

You missed