Latest Post

Legal Representatives Can Claim Motor Accident Compensation Even Without Financial Dependency On Deceased Execution Of Unregistered Agreement To Sell Does Not Terminate Subsisting Landlord-Tenant Relationship Nor Entitle Tenant To Section 53A TP Act Protection A. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Section 111(e) & (f) — Landlord and Tenant — Determination of lease by express or implied surrender — Execution of agreement to sell by landlord in favour of tenant — Effect on jural relationship — Held, mere execution of an agreement to sell between landlord and tenant does not ipso facto determine the subsisting tenancy — Tenancy is determined only when terms of agreement or unequivocal conduct of parties disclose express or implied surrender — Where agreement to sell contained clause for cancellation and restoration of possession in case loan was not sanctioned, existing possession was referable to tenancy and not to agreement to sell — Landlord-tenant relationship continued to subsist. Appellate Courts Should Not Remand Cases Under Order 41 Rule 23 CPC As A Matter Of Course When Sufficient Evidence Is Available On Record. A. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 41 Rules 23 and 24 — Power of Appellate Court to remand — Remand of case to Trial Court for framing of additional issues and fresh evidence — Permissibility — High Court remitted suit regarding one item of property for framing issues on whether sale deed was sham, limitation, and possession — Held, remand is not to be adopted as a matter of ordinary course and reflects incorrect exercise of discretion when sufficient evidence is available on record — Issues already framed by Trial Court were comprehensive enough to cover core disputes — Appellate Court is fully empowered to decide issues on merits or admit additional evidence if warranted, rather than remitting matter to cause unnecessary delay — Remand set aside and appeals restored to High Court for fresh disposal on merits. Extended Period Of Limitation Under Proviso To Section 11A, Central Excise Act Cannot Be Invoked When Facts Are Known To Department Without Wilful Suppression A. Central Excise Act, 1944 — Section 35L — Maintainability of appeal before Supreme Court — Preliminary objection raised by Department that appeal does not come under Section 35L as issue had no relation to rate of duty or valuation — Held, issue raised regarding extended period of limitation on ground of non-inclusion of certain costs in assessable value has an inextricable link with valuation of goods for purposes of assessment — Issue raised in show cause notice fundamentally dealt with valuation of goods — Supreme Court declined to relegate matter to High Court after almost a decade of pendency — Preliminary objection rejected. Environment Law — Environmental Clearance — Prior clearance — Mandatory character — Prior environmental clearance under EIA Notification, 2006 is mandatory, being founded on the precautionary principle and couched in imperative terms — Word “prior” and the graded four-stage screening, scoping, public consultation and appraisal process render an anterior assessment the sine qua non of the clearance regime — Decriminalisation of contraventions under Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023 does not alter this mandatory character.

Corrigendum to Environment Clearance on additional conditions -An aggrieved person may always challenge the corrigendum to the EC, however, the appeal will be restricted to the corrigendum to the EC on additional conditions only, if the original EC is not under challenge and/or the original EC has been confirmed by the NGT earlier on certain conditions which have not been challenged

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S IL&FS TAMIL NADU POWER COMPANY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. T. MURUGANANDAM AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar,…

(IPC) – Ss 302 & 149 – (CrPC) – S 164 – Murder – Investigating Officer to have got the statement under section 164 CrPC recorded – If he did not think it necessary in his wisdom, it cannot have any bearing on the testimony of witness and the other material evidence led during trial – Conviction and sentence upheld

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AJAI ALIAS AJJU ETC. ETC. — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Vikram Nath, JJ.…

Service Matters

Provision of review is not to scrutinize the correctness of the decision rendered rather to correct the error, if any, which is visible on the face of the order / record without going into as to whether there is a possibility of another opinion different from the one expressed HELD new stand for the payment of salary to teachers’ subject-wise, unsustainable in law and is accordingly set aside

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PANCHAM LAL PANDEY — Appellant Vs. NEERAJ KUMAR MISHRA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. ) Civil…

Delimitation of Assembly and Parliamentary Constituencies – Article 170 will have no application as it forms a part of Chapter III of Part VI which deals with only the State Legislature – It has no application to the Legislatures of Union Territories HELD argument that certain provisions of the J&K Reorganisation Act and actions taken thereunder are in conflict with Article 170 and in particular Clause (3) thereof is clearly misconceived and deserves to be rejected.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HAJI ABDUL GANI KHAN AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay…

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 14 and 300A – Development Control Rules – Rule 19 – Building bye Laws – Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution are not violated by the requirement to reserve 10% of land for open space – It does not amount to compulsory acquisition – Areas covered by the Open Space Regulation area (OSR) cannot be diverted for any other purpose

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ASSOCIATION OF VASANTH APARTMENTS’ OWNERS — Appellant Vs. V. GOPINATH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ.…

HELD whether the protection can be given by Article 26(b) to the practice of ex-communication is to be tested on the touchstone of the concept of Constitutional morality as the said right is subject to morality. This is an important and emergent issue. These are the two main grounds on which the said decision may need reconsideration by a larger Bench. Writ petition tagged to 9 judge bench.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH CENTRAL BOARD OF DAWOODI BOHRA COMMUNITY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan…

You missed