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.

HELD the construction of the disputed building on the land earmarked/reserved as a playground is illegal and contrary to the Panchayats proposal, technical sanction and the financial sanction, as well as the work order and hence, the same, has to be demolished at the cost and responsibility of the respondent No.2 Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Longewala and respondent No.4 Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Longewala

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE SARPANCH, GRAM PANCHAYAT, LONGWALA PANCHAYAT SAMITI, PILIBANGA, DISTRICT HANUMANGARH, RAJASTHAN — Appellant Vs. MANVEER SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv…

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 141 – Law of Precedents – Doctrine of Merger and Res judicata – Dismissal of appeal without any reasons being recorded would not attract Article 141 of the Constitution of India as no law was declared by the Supreme Court, which will have a binding effect on all courts and tribunals in India – The logic behind the doctrine of merger is that there cannot be more than one decree or operative orders governing the same subject matter at a given point of time

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH EXPERION DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. HIMANSHU DEWAN AND SONALI DEWAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna, Bela M. Trivedi…

Service Matters

A presumption ought to have been drawn in favour of the validity of the marriage between the deceased and the appellant-wife, more so, when during his life time, the deceased had approached the respondent authorities for seeking deletion of the name of his previous wife from his service record and for endorsement of the name of the appellant- wife, which was duly acted upon by the respondents – Pensionary benefits granted.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SMT. SHIRAMABAI W/O PUNDALIK BHAVE & OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE CAPTAIN, RECORD OFFICER FOR O.I.C. RECORDS, SENA CORPS ABHILEKH, GAYA, BIHAR STATE AND…

Murder – Acquittal – Case of prosecution is entirely based on the extra-judicial confession – for the reasons recorded, it is not possible to accept the case of the prosecution which is entirely based on the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant – Thus, there was no legal evidence on record to convict the appellant.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MOORTHY — Appellant Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.975…

Percentage of deduction or the extent of area required to be set apart has to be assessed by the courts having regard to the size, shape, situation, user etc. of the lands acquired – It is essentially a kind of guess work the courts are expected to undertake – A cut of one third was required to be imposed on the amount of compensation awarded by it – Assessment of market value so determined does not warrant any interference – Appeal dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MALA ETC. ETC. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi and Dipankar Datta,…

Right to Information Act, 2005 – Section 4 – – the public authorities owe a duty to disseminate the information widely suo motu to the public so as to make it easily accessible to the public. In regard to information enumerated or required to be enumerated under Sections 4(1)(b) and (c) of the RTI Act, necessarily and naturally, the competent authorities under the RTI Act will have to act in a proactive manner so as to ensure accountability and ensure that the fight against corruption goes on relentlessly

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH KISHAN CHAND JAIN — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI., Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha…

A plea of non est factum can be taken by an executor or signatory of the deed to plead that the said document is invalid as its executor/signatory was mistaken about its character at the time of executing/signing it. It is a latin maxim which literally means “it is not the deed.” A plea of non est factum is a defence available in Contract Law allowing a person to escape the effect of a document which she/he may have executed/signed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAMATHAL AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. K. RAJAMANI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS AND ANOTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ.…

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 – Ss 34 & 37 – The scope of jurisdiction under Section 34 and Section 37 of the Act is not akin to normal appellate jurisdiction.[3] It is well-settled that courts ought not to interfere with the arbitral award in a casual and cavalier manner. The mere possibility of an alternative view on facts or interpretation of the contract does not entitle courts to reverse the findings of the Arbitral Tribunal

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH KONKAN RAILWAY CORPORATION LIMITED — Appellant Vs. CHENAB BRIDGE PROJECT UNDERTAKING — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI., Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha…

You missed