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.
Service Matters

A writ of certiorari, being a high prerogative writ, should not be issued on mere asking – Supreme Court explained that a court which has jurisdiction over a subject matter has jurisdiction to decide wrong as well as right, and when the Legislature does not choose to confer a right of appeal against that decision, it would be defeating its purpose and policy if a superior court were to rehear the case on the evidence and substitute its own finding in certiorari

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR RESEARCH IN AYURVEDIC SCIENCES & ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. BIKARTAN DAS AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y.…

Considering the principles laid down in sub-section (4)(b) of Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act Act, the seller will have a charge over the property subject matter of the sale for unpaid consideration and he can enforce the charge by filing a suit.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before: Abhay S. Oka & Rajesh Bindal, JJ. Civil Appeal No.10412 of 2013 Decided on: 31.07.2023 Yogendra Prasad Singh (Dead) through LRs – Appellants Versus Ram…

To give threat to a person to withdraw a complaint or FIR or settle the dispute would not attract Section 195A of the IPC — Nowhere the first informant has stated that out of fear, she paid Rs. 10 Lakh to the accused persons – No offence under Section 386 of the IPC can be said to have been made out — FIR quashed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before: B.R. Gavai & J.B. Pardiwala, JJ. Criminal Appeal No. 2344 of 2023 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 3152 of 2023) Decided on: 08.08.2023 Salib…

Land Acquisition – 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

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,…

Held, in view of the decision rendered by the Constitution Bench in Lalita Kumari’s case (2014) 2 SCC 1, registration of FIR is mandatory u/s 154 of CrPC, if the information discloses commission of cognizable offence — Appeal allowed and direction given to concerned respondents to proceed further with the complaints filed by the appellant in accordance with law.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before: Bela M. Trivedi & Dipankar Datta, JJ. SLP (Crl.) No. 5883 of 2020) Decided on: 08.08.2023 Sindhu Janak Nagargoje – Appellant(s) Versus The State of…

HELD appellants cannot be worse off than the other affected landowners of the same village, i.e., Morlipura, who have been paid more compensation. In a welfare state like ours where we have promised all the citizens social and economic justice, it would be fair and just if the appellants are meted equal treatment as the other affected landowners

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KALUBHAI KHATUBHAI ETC. ETC. — Appellant Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT & OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi and Dipankar Datta, JJ.…

Chhattisgarh Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995 – Section 80 – Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 – Rule 6 – Election Petition – Relief for re-counting of votes – Election Petition seeking relief for re-counting of votes only, without seeking any other reliefs i.e., declarations as contemplated in Rule 6, would not be tenable in the eye of law

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DHARMIN BAI KASHYAP — Appellant Vs. BABLI SAHU & OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ. ) Civil…

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 29A – Coparcenary rights – Partition and separate possession of one-third in the plaint schedule property – Property is not available partition as of the date of coming into force of Section 29A – There is no prohibition to effect a partition otherwise than through an instrument in writing by duly complying with the requirement of law – Division may also be effected under a settlement or oral understanding

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH H. VASANTHI — Appellant Vs. A. SANTHA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ.…

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 17 Rule 2 – Procedure if parties fail to appear on day fixed – Where the evidence or a substantial portion of the evidence of any party has already been recorded and such party fails to appear on any day to which the hearing of the suit is adjourned, the Court would be at liberty to proceed with the case as if such party were present

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH Y.P. LELE — Appellant Vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ.…

You missed