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.

Revised agreement – Reduction to 10000 KVA from 23000 KVA – Appellant neither sought for nor consumed the electricity more than the maximum demand of 10000 KVA – This Court directs the Respondent to return the amount as may be calculated and verified, paid by the Appellant to it for 13000 KVA, in excess to its request of maximum sanctioned demand of 10000 KVA (23000-10000 = 13000 KVA)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH THE MADRAS ALUMINIUM CO. LTD. — Appellant Vs. THE TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai, Sanjay Karol…

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 141 – where no reason was assigned by the Court while dismissing the matter and where leave was not granted in the said Special Leave Petition, the said dismissal would not be considered as laying down law within the ambit of Article 141 – such dismissal of Special Leave Petition by way of a non-speaking order does not attract the doctrine of merger.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH S. NARAHARI AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. S.R. KUMAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Krishna Murari and Sanjay Karol, JJ. ) Civil…

(IPC) – Sections 308 and 338 – The appellant, as a conductor, had a duty to take care of the passengers on the overcrowded bus – However, he failed to verify if all passengers had safely boarded the bus before signaling the driver to start – Despite knowing that many students were waiting at the bus stop, he neglected his duty and acted recklessly – As a result, PW-1 suffered a fractured pelvis, putting human life in danger

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ABDUL ANSAR — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KERALA — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…

Service Matters

Re-instatement – Back wages – The appellant established unemployment at least until August 1997 – Based on the salary figures provided, the appellant’s gross salary on the date of reinstatement was Rs. 18,830, while it was approximately Rs. 4,000 per month at the time of removal – An amount of Rs.3 lakhs is ordered to be paid to the appellant in lieu of back wages.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAMESH CHAND — Appellant Vs. MANAGEMENT OF DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Civil…

Evidence Act, 1872 – Ss 4 and 18 – Testimony of a child witness – Before taking the testimony of a minor, it is the responsibility of the Judicial Officer to ask preliminary questions to ensure that the minor can comprehend and respond rationally & record the preliminary questions and answers for review by the Appellate Court to assess the Trial Court’s opinion accurately.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRADEEP — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…

The right to enjoy possession of any land notified under Section 4 is not only limited to Adivasi communities and other forest dwelling communities, but is also based on proof of residence, date of original possession, etc – If the right to inhabit the said lands is not restricted only to certain communities, how can the right to be heard on such claims be restricted to the same.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HARI PRAKASH SHUKLA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Krishna Murari and Ahsanuddin…

You missed