Latest Post

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 319 — Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence — Application for summoning additional accused — High Court quashed summons issued against them — Whether High Court was justified — Held, no. — Evidence of eyewitnesses, though prima facie, suggested complicity of the applicant, assigning specific role and indicating presence at scene armed with weapon of offence — High Court applied standard of conviction rather than standard of satisfaction required for summoning — Standard for summoning is more than prima facie case but less than conviction — Summoning order restored. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Section 106 — Notice terminating tenancy — Service by registered post — Return with endorsement “ND” (Not Delivered) — General Clauses Act, 1897 — Section 27 — Deemed service — High Court set aside ejectment decree solely on ground of “ND” endorsement, misinterpreting deemed service provisions — Supreme Court held High Court erred in not considering Section 27 of GC Act regarding deemed service by registered post. Pension Law — Family Pension — Eligibility of ‘Substitutes’ in Railways — deceased husband of the appellant was appointed as a ‘Substitute Waterman’ and died in harness after serving for 9 years, 8 months, and 26 days — Railways denied family pension on the grounds that his service was not regularized and did not meet the 10-year qualifying period for family pension — Appellant contended that as per Indian Railway Establishment Manual Vol-I, Rule 1515 and Railway Service (Pension) Rules, 1993, especially Rule 75(2)(a), substitutes with continuous service of one year are entitled to family pension. Held, deceased had acquired temporary status and completed more than one year of continuous service, thus eligible for family pension. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — Section 2(2) — Exclusion of Scheduled Tribes — The Act does not apply to members of Scheduled Tribes unless the Central Government directs otherwise by notification. Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) — Section 18(2) — Conciliation proceedings — Referring time-barred claims — Time-barred claims can be referred to conciliation as the expiry of the limitation period does not extinguish the right to recover the amount, and a settlement agreement reached through conciliation is akin to a contract for repayment of a time-barred debt, recognized under Section 25(3) of the Contract Act
Service Matters

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 309 — Executive Orders as Recruitment Rules — The court affirms that in the absence of formal rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, executive orders issued by the government can serve as the governing recruitment rules — Specifically, Government Order (G.O.) dated 07th April, 2008 is recognized as the applicable executive order for the Medical Education Service.

2025 INSC 70 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DR. SHARMAD Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS ( Before : Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013— Finality of Determinations— The Court established a precedent that once determinations regarding compensation and entitlements have been adjudicated and approved by the Court, they cannot be reopened by the Claims Commission based on changes in policy— This applies specifically to the ten villages for which reports were previously finalised— This means that the Commission should not re-evaluate or re-adjudicate cases that have already been settled.

2025 INSC 22 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MAHANADI COAL FIELDS LTD. AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. MATHIAS ORAM AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 415 and 420 — Cheating — The court found that the elements of cheating under Section 415 were not met — The appellant did not deceive the 4th respondent, nor did the sale deeds cause harm or damage to the 4th respondent — The appellant did not claim to be or represent the 4th respondent, nor did the appellant try to transfer the rights of the 4th respondent — The court cited a previous case, Mohd. Ibrahim vs. State of Bihar, (2009) 8 SCC 751 , stating that while a seller can be accused of defrauding a purchaser if they sell property that does not belong to them, a third party who is not the purchaser may not be able to make such a complaint

2025 INSC 31 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JIT VINAYAK AROLKAR Vs. STATE OF GOA AND OTHERS ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. ) Criminal…

You missed