Latest Post

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 7 Rule 11 — Rejection of plaint — Abuse of process — Family arrangement (KBPP) and Conciliation Award — Allegations of undue influence, coercion, misrepresentation, and fabrication — Grounds for challenge were distinct for KBPP and Award — Lower courts erred in rejecting plaint by treating documents as one Conciliation Award and dismissing allegations of fraud due to admitted execution of KBPP — Allegations of coercion need not be limited to life threat and can arise from subservience — Rejection of plaint was erroneous as prima facie cause of action disclosed, suit not vexatious or abuse of process. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 108, 80, 103, 85 — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Sections 3, 4 — Offences — Abetment to suicide, Dowry death, Murder — Allegations of extra-marital relationship, demand of money/dowry — Deceased died of poisoning/injection — Autopsy findings — Prosecution case not strong at bail stage. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 33(1) — Requirement for employer to seek permission before altering service conditions or stopping work of workmen during pendency of dispute — Failure to do so constitutes a breach of the Act. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Sections 10(1), 12 — Reference of industrial dispute — Apprehended dispute — Appropriate Government’s power to refer — The appropriate Government has the power to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication if it is of the opinion that such dispute exists or is apprehended. The initiation of conciliation proceedings under Section 12 does not statutorily require a prior demand notice to the employer as a pre-condition to approaching the Conciliation Officer. The management’s argument that a prior demand notice is essential, based on certain previous judgments, fails as it ignores the provision for referring an apprehended dispute, which can be invoked to prevent industrial unrest Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 175(4) — Complaints against public servants alleged to have committed offenses in discharge of official duties — Interpretation — This provision is not a standalone provision, nor is it a proviso to Section 175(3) — It must be read in harmony with Section 175(3), with Section 175(4) forming an extension of Section 175(3) — The power to order investigation under Section 175(3) is conferred upon a judicial magistrate, while Section 175(4) also confers such power but prescribes a special procedure for complaints against public servants — The expression “complaint” in Section 175(4) does not encompass oral complaints and must be understood in the context of a written complaint supported by an affidavit, as required by Section 175(3) — This interpretation ensures that the procedural safeguard of an affidavit, mandated by Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., is not undermined even when dealing with public servants — The intention is to provide a two-tier protection: first, at the threshold stage under Section 175(4) with additional safeguards, and second, at the post-investigation stage under Section 218(1) regarding previous sanction. (Paras 26, 31, 37.1, 37.2, 37.4, 37.5, 37.6, 37.8, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44)
Service Matters

Inter-departmental communication cannot be treated to be a letter of allotment – Even if it is considered to be a letter of allotment, the writ petitioner-wife of the ex-serviceman, who died in July 1998 could not claim possession on the basis of such communication after more than 30 years in terms of the Rules applicable for allotment of land to the disabled ex-servicemen.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH MAHADEO AND OTHERS — Appellant SMT. SOVAN DEVI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and Vikram Nath, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

(NDPS) – Section 54 of the Act raises a presumption and the burden shifts on the accused to explain as to how he came into possession of the contraband – But to raise the presumption under Section 54 of the Act, it must first be established that a recovery was made from the accused.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH SANJEET KUMAR SINGH @ MUNNA KUMAR SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ.…

Service Matters

Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 – Section 5(1) – Sub-section (1) of Section 5 confers an entitlement on a woman to the payment of maternity benefits at a stipulated rate for the period of her actual absence beginning from the period immediately preceding the day of her delivery, the actual day of her delivery and any period immediately following that day.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH DEEPIKA SINGH — Appellant Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and A S Bopanna, JJ.…

(IPC) – Ss 405, 415 and 420 – The offence of criminal breach of trust contains two ingredients: (i) entrusting any person with property, or with any dominion over property; and (ii) the person entrusted dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property to the detriment of the person who entrusted it.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH M N G BHARATEESH REDDY — Appellant Vs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and A S…

A judgment can be open to review if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record, but an error that has to be detected by a process of reasoning, cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record for the Court to exercise its powers of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH S. MADHUSUDHAN REDDY — Appellant Vs. V. NARAYANA REDDY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI., Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli,…

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 127 – Power to transfer cases – Even if the case or cases of an assessee are transferred in exercise of power under Section 127 of the Act, the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer has passed the order, shall continue to exercise the jurisdiction of appeal

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – I, CHANDIGARH — Appellant Vs. M/S. ABC PAPERS LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, S.…

HELD by accepting the alternate relief claimed by the plaintiff of refund of the advance amount along with the interest @ 12% per annum. The High Court found suspicious circumstances and doubtful situations being raised by both the sides. The reasons given by the High Court as contained in paragraph 40, in our opinion, were sufficient to arrive at a conclusion of not awarding the relief of specific performance of contract

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH AYILLYATH YADUNATH NAMBIAR — Appellant Vs. P. SREEDHARAN — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and Vikram Nath, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No(s). 4943…

Service Matters

Prescription of pay scales and incentives are a matter of decision taken by the government which, when based upon the recommendation of an expert body like the Central Pay Commission, should carry weight and the courts should be reluctant to substitute the policy with their own views on what would be more equitable and just.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. EX. HC/GD VIRENDER SINGH — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ.…

You missed