Latest Post

Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 vs. Government Grants Act, 1895 — Relationship Governed by Grant — A lease originating from a Government grant, as governed by the Government Grants Act, 1895, is not subject to the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 — The incidence and enforceability of such a grant are governed solely by its tenor — The legal character of the grant does not derive from conventional landlord — tenant relationships but from the sovereign grant and its embedded conditions — Therefore, eviction proceedings under the Delhi Rent Control Act are not maintainable for holdings originating from a Government grant. Jurisdiction of Civil Court — Challenge to Municipal Limits — Matters concerning the specification and alteration of municipal limits under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, are legislative in nature and cannot ordinarily be adjudicated by a Civil Court through a suit seeking declarations and injunctions — The High Court correctly held that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging the Corporation’s assertion of jurisdiction over certain lands based on its interpretation of Section 3 of the MMC Act. Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), Section 13 — Default in repayment of financial assistance — Secured creditor entitled to take possession and auction secured asset (School premises) — Petitioners repeatedly failed to honour commitments and undertakings to repay debt, even after High Court and Supreme Court orders — Conduct amounted to disobedience of court orders and disregard for rule of law. Judicial Review and Public Interest Litigation — Court’s Directions for Wildlife Conservation — The Supreme Court issued detailed directions based on the CEC’s report, including the acceptance of all recommendations, time-bound relocation of deer under CEC supervision, and adherence to stringent translocation protocols — The court also directed the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change to examine and implement comprehensive guidelines for future wildlife translocations. Criminal Law — Circumstantial Evidence — Burden of Proof — Reasonable Doubt — Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete chain of evidence that leaves no reasonable ground for doubt, consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, with the sole remaining incriminating circumstance being the “last seen together” theory, which was deemed insufficient for conviction as an accomplice.

Section 116A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 HELD appellant-successful candidate was not born on 30.09.1990 and was not twenty-five years old at the time of filing the nomination as the appellant has been unable to prove the said fact – the date of birth of the appellant as 01.01.1993 which have been proved the election petitioner. The issuance of the fresh passport during the pendency of the Election Petition of no value. Appeal dismissed

FULL BENCH MOHD. ABDULLAH AZAM KHAN — Appellant Vs. NAWAB KAZIM ALI KHAN — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi, B.V. Nagarathna and B.V. Nagarathna JJ. ) Civil Appeal No(S).…

HELD The management cannot be permitted to retain the amount recovered/collected pursuant to the illegal G.O. dated 06.09.2017. The medical colleges are the beneficiaries of the illegal G.O. dated 06.09.2017 which is rightly set aside by the High Court. The respective medical colleges have used/utilized the amount recovered under G.O. dated 06.09.2017 for a number years and kept with them for a number of year . Appeal dismissed with costs.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NARAYANA MEDICAL COLLEGE — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ.…

The Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 – the capital value of the land and building must be based on situation “in presenti”- in projects which are in progress, the value addition to the property would be ongoing feature. However, it would mean that the governing principle must be the actual use and not the intended use in future.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. PROPERTY OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, CJI.…

Rape and Murder – Death Penalty – Acquittal – Circumstantial evidence – Lapses in investigation and trial – There was no Test Identification parade conducted by any of the Investigating Officers during the course of their respective investigations – Nor any of the witnesses had identified the accused during their respective depositions – As per the settled legal position, in order to sustain conviction, the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH RAHUL — Appellant Vs. STATE OF DELHI MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, CJI., S. Ravindra…

Company Secretaries Regulations, 1982 – Regulations 92(2) and 117(2) – Applicability of Regulation 92(2) – Regulation 92(2) shall be applicable only in a case of absence and not in a case where the post of Chairman and/or office bearer has fallen vacant – There is a distinction between the absence and the post fallen vacant

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH INSTITUTE OF COMPANY SECRETARIES OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. BIMAN DEBNATH AND OTHERTS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and M.M. Sundresh, JJ.…

Army Act, 1950 – Sections 45 and 122 – Martial Proceedings – Period of limitation for trial – For the purpose of Section 122, the two dates will be relevant i.e., the date when the alleged offence comes to the knowledge of the person aggrieved and the date on which the authority competent to initiate action comes to know about the alleged offence

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH IC-56663X COL ANIL KUMAR GUPTA — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, CJI., and Bela…

Jharkhand High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010 – HELD allegations made by petitioner vague, very much generalized and not at all substantiated by anything worthy to be called an evidence. Allegations of corruption and siphoning of money from shell companies are nothing but a bald allegation, without substantiating the allegations. Petitioner non- disclosure of the credentials of the petitioner and the past efforts made for similar reliefs. PILs dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH STATE OF JHARKHAND — Appellant Vs. SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, CJI., S. Ravindra Bhat and…

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 4 and 6 – Acquisition of land – When the acquisition is solely for the purpose of excavation of coal and the entire land is acquired on the basis of the estimates of the coal reserve identified and the entire land is to be mined and used and no further developmental activity is required

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH S. SHANKARAIAH THR. GPA HOLDER AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER PEDDAPALI KARIMNAGAR DIST. AND OTHERS —…

Mesne profits/compensation – From the date of the decree of eviction, the tenant is liable to pay mesne profits or compensation for use and occupation of the premises at the same rate at which the landlord would have been able to let out the premises – Landlord not bound by contractual rate of rent

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUMER CORPORATION — Appellant Vs. VIJAY ANANT GANGAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and M.M. Sundresh, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 – Section 52(1A) read with Section 102(1)(ca) – Election – Non-disclosure of conviction – Failure to disclose conviction for an offence under the Kerala Police Act for holding a dharna in front of the Panchayat office, not a ground for declaring an election void – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAVI NAMBOOTHIRI — Appellant Vs. K.A. BAIJU AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Abdul Nazeer and V.Ramasubramanian, JJ. ) Civil Appeal Nos.…

You missed