Latest Post

Remission — Premature release of life convicts — Applicable policy — Conflict between Haryana’s 2002 Policy (dated 12.4.2002) and 2008 Policy (dated 13.8.2008) — Source of power — Held, the 2002 Policy, being in substance and effect referable to Article 161 of the Constitution of India (papers to be routed to the Governor for orders), is constitutional in origin, notwithstanding that it does not expressly recite the source of power — The 2008 Policy, by contrast, expressly invokes Sections 432 and 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and makes the Chief Minister the deciding authority, and is thus statutory in character — A policy traceable to a statute cannot override or supersede the exercise of the constitutional power under Article 161, that power being distinct, independent and uninfluenced by any statutory power — The purported “supersession” of the 2002 Policy by the 2008 Policy is accordingly untenable in law qua convicts governed by the 2002 Policy — Appellant held entitled to the benefit of the more liberal 2002 Policy. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Sections 7 and 14 — Corporate guarantee — Effect of demerger/amalgamation of corporate debtor — NCLT admission order under S. 7 relying on six judicial precedents to reject corporate guarantor’s plea that liability stood extinguished on demerger/amalgamation — NCLAT dismissing appeal and reproducing the same precedents — On independent verification by Supreme Court, found that of the six citations, one carried a wrong citation of an existing but different judgment together with a non-existent paragraph, three were altogether non-existent citations, and two, though correctly cited, contained paragraphs not traceable to the actual reported judgments — Held, the citations relied upon by NCLT were fake, non-existent or hallucinated, apparently AI-generated, and NCLAT failed to detect the fabrication — Orders of NCLT dated 28.08.2024 and NCLAT dated 11.09.2025 set aside — Section 7 application restored to its original number for fresh disposal strictly on merits, without expression of any opinion by the Supreme Court — NCLT directed to dispose of the application expeditiously, preferably within two weeks, with parties to maintain status quo in the interregnum. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 168 — Notional income of skilled worker — Carpenter — Assessment — The appellant, a carpenter aged 38 years, suffered amputation of his right leg below the knee in a road accident in November 2004 — The Claims Tribunal assessed his monthly income at Rs. 3,000/- and the High Court enhanced it to Rs. 5,000/- relying on minimum wages. Held — A carpenter is a skilled artisan who works with precision and manual dexterity — His income cannot be equated with that of an unskilled worker — Where the appellant’s unrefuted evidence showed earnings of Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- per month, and a skilled job always has the potentiality to fetch higher income, the High Court erred in restricting the figure to Rs. 5,000/- — Considering the date of accident, decisions in comparable cases and the fact of the appellant being a skilled worker, his notional monthly income is assessed at Rs. 9,000/- per month. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 304 Part II — Culpable Homicide not Amounting to Murder — Conviction and sentence — Appeal against — Abatement of appeal due to death of co-accused — Death of two appellants during pendency of appeal — Appeal survives only for the third appellant. Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 — Section 154 — Transfer of land in contravention of ceiling limit — Not void ipso facto — Capable of ratification — Legality of transfer to be judged by law on date of execution — Sale deed executed on 04.06.1957 — Ceiling limit then was 30 acres, subsequently amended to 12.5 acres retrospectively from 01.07.1952 — Transfer in contravention of Section 154 not void but voidable at instance of Gaon Sabha coupled with liability for ejectment of transferee under Section 163 — No suit filed for ejectment within limitation period.

Remission — Premature release of life convicts — Applicable policy — Conflict between Haryana’s 2002 Policy (dated 12.4.2002) and 2008 Policy (dated 13.8.2008) — Source of power — Held, the 2002 Policy, being in substance and effect referable to Article 161 of the Constitution of India (papers to be routed to the Governor for orders), is constitutional in origin, notwithstanding that it does not expressly recite the source of power — The 2008 Policy, by contrast, expressly invokes Sections 432 and 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and makes the Chief Minister the deciding authority, and is thus statutory in character — A policy traceable to a statute cannot override or supersede the exercise of the constitutional power under Article 161, that power being distinct, independent and uninfluenced by any statutory power — The purported “supersession” of the 2002 Policy by the 2008 Policy is accordingly untenable in law qua convicts governed by the 2002 Policy — Appellant held entitled to the benefit of the more liberal 2002 Policy.

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Sections 7 and 14 — Corporate guarantee — Effect of demerger/amalgamation of corporate debtor — NCLT admission order under S. 7 relying on six judicial precedents to reject corporate guarantor’s plea that liability stood extinguished on demerger/amalgamation — NCLAT dismissing appeal and reproducing the same precedents — On independent verification by Supreme Court, found that of the six citations, one carried a wrong citation of an existing but different judgment together with a non-existent paragraph, three were altogether non-existent citations, and two, though correctly cited, contained paragraphs not traceable to the actual reported judgments — Held, the citations relied upon by NCLT were fake, non-existent or hallucinated, apparently AI-generated, and NCLAT failed to detect the fabrication — Orders of NCLT dated 28.08.2024 and NCLAT dated 11.09.2025 set aside — Section 7 application restored to its original number for fresh disposal strictly on merits, without expression of any opinion by the Supreme Court — NCLT directed to dispose of the application expeditiously, preferably within two weeks, with parties to maintain status quo in the interregnum.

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…

You missed