Latest Post

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 — Auction Sale — Compliance with Rule 9 — Mandatory Nature — Payment of Balance 75% Beyond 15-Day Period — No Written Agreement for Extension — Sale Set Aside — Article 142 — Redemption Opportunity Granted to Legal Heirs of Deceased Guarantor. Third Judge under S. 392 CrPC cannot disturb unanimous Division Bench findings; reference confined to disagreed accused only.–Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 392 — Third Judge — Power to give independent opinion — Options available — When an appeal is heard by a Division Bench and the Judges are divided in opinion, the appeal is laid before a third Judge under S. 392 — The third Judge is not confined to choosing between the two views expressed by the Division Bench Judges — The third Judge may: (i) agree with either of the two opinions expressed; (ii) form an independent view at divergence with both opinions; or (iii) where warranted, receive additional evidence under S. 391 before forming an opinion — The opinion of the third Judge governs and the judgment follows therefrom. Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226(1) — Territorial jurisdiction — Writ petition by CAPF personnel — Delhi High Court — Jurisdiction based on situs of respondent’s office —The Delhi High Court has territorial jurisdiction under Art. 226(1) of the Constitution to entertain a writ petition preferred by any enrolled member of the Border Security Force or any Central Armed Police Force (CAPF) who is aggrieved by an administrative order of termination of service, by reason of the situs of the offices of the Union of India and the Director General of the concerned CAPF in New Delhi — and this jurisdictional competence subsists notwithstanding that the impugned order of termination was issued from a place outside the territorial limits of the Delhi High Court and that no part of the cause of action arose within such limits — The Union of India and the Director General, BSF are necessary parties to such a writ petition by virtue of Ss. 4 and 5 of the BSF Act and the requirement under R. 22(4) of the BSF Rules that every order of dismissal/removal be reported to the Director General; there is, moreover, a presumption that official acts have been regularly performed. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 168 — Compensation — Death of homemaker — New head of ‘Loss of Domestic Care’ — Basis and quantum — The conventional method of computing compensation upon the death of a homemaker suffers from an inherent disadvantage — Notional income, as assigned by earlier decisions, fails to capture the economic, emotional and managerial contributions that a homemaker makes to the household and to nation-building at large — In recognition of the multifarious yet unquantified roles of a homemaker — (i) contribution towards smooth functioning of the household; (ii) loss of maternal support to children; and (iii) loss of spousal/parental support — a composite sum of Rs. 30,000/- per month shall be added under the head ‘Loss of Domestic Care’ — This sum shall serve as the stand-in monthly income where the homemaker has no conventional monetary income — It shall be revised cumulatively by 10% every three years — Where the homemaker is part of the paid workforce, this head shall be in addition to the proved monthly income. Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 — Section 8(3) — Unauthorized alienation of minor’s property — Such alienation is voidable, not void ab initio, and can be challenged by the minor upon attaining majority or by someone claiming under the minor.

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24(2) – Acquisition proceedings Lapse by High Court – Possession could not be taken due to stay order/pending litigation, the matters are required to be remanded to the High Court to decide the writ petitions afresh in accordance with law.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. HIRA SINGH — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. ) Civil…

Amount of compensation was deposited with the Reference Court in term of Section 30/31 of the 1894 Act HELD one of the conditions being satisfied, the order passed by the High Court cannot be legally sustained whereby the acquisition has been held to have lapsed in terms of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — Appellant Vs. ANITA SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Civil…

Carriage by Road Act, 2007 – Section 16 – No notice under Section 16 of the Carriage by Road Act, 2007 was necessary for instituting any suit or legal proceedings much less counter-claim against the common carrier for recovering the loss other than the loss of or damage to the consignment

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ESSEMM LOGISTICS — Appellant Vs. DARCL LOGISTICS LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Default bail – Filing of a charge sheet is sufficient compliance – where the accused fails to apply for default bail when the right accrues to him, and subsequently a chargesheet, or a report seeking extension of time is preferred before the Magistrate or any other competent court, the right to default bail would be extinguished

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JUDGEBIR SINGH @ JASBIR SINGH SAMRA @ JASBIR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y.…

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 8 – Reference to arbitration – Non-existence of arbitration agreement in relation to the entire subject-matter of the suit, and when the substantive reliefs claimed in the suits fall outside the arbitration clause in the original licence agreement.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GUJARAT COMPOSITE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. A INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ. ) Civil…

IMPORTANT – Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 142(1) – Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – In exercise of power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India, has the discretion to dissolve the marriage on the ground of its irretrievable breakdown

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CONSTITUTION BENCH SHILPA SAILESH — Appellant Vs. VARUN SREENIVASAN — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, Abhay S. Oka, Vikram Nath and J.K.…

Complainant has attempted to turn a purely contractual dispute between the parties into a criminal case – Not only that, there is an inordinate delay in lodging the complaint – Complaint does not disclose that any of the ingredients of the offence complained of have been made out – Complaint bearing filed before the trial court under Section 403, 406, 420 and 120B of the IPC is dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRAKASH AGGARWAL — Appellant Vs. GANESH BENZOPLAST LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Vikram Nath, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Service Matters

Order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court directing to pay additional 2% in addition to the existing pay to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical) from the date of their initial appointment is/are hereby quashed and set aside.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SRI. B. G. MANAMOHANA PRIYANKA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah…

Service Matters

Appointment to post of Sub Inspector of Police – Eligibility – Remanded to DB of HC that it will be open for the Division Bench to call for the expert’s opinion on the questions of which their answers were alleged to be incorrect for which the objections were raised so that if ultimately it is found that the answers with respect to some questions were incorrect and consequently, the marks are added and they may become eligible.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SACHIT KUMAR SINGH AND OTHERS ETC. ETC. — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS ETC. ETC. — Respondent ( Before : M.R.…

You missed