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.

Motor Vehicles Act 1988 – Section 93 – Aggregation Licence – In terms of the first proviso to Section 93(1), the State Government, while issuing a licence to an aggregator, “may follow” the guidelines issued by the Central Government – Section 96 confers a rule making power on the State Government for implementing the provisions of Chapter V.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ROPPEN TRANSPORTATION SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI., Pamidighantam…

Citizenship Act 1955 – Section 7B – Rights of Overseas Citizens of India (OCI) – Entrance tests to medical courses – Impugned notification dated 04.03.2021 to be valid with specific prospective effect in view of the power available to respondent No.1 under Section 7B(1) of Act, 1955, keeping in perspective the wide ramification it may have in future also on the Indian diaspora and since it is claimed to be based on the policy decision of the Sovereign State.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANUSHKA RENGUNTHWAR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.S. Bopanna and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. )…

HELD Permitting a candidate to contest from more than one seat in a Parliamentary election or at an election to the State Legislative Assembly is a matter of legislative policy – It is a matter pertaining to legislative policy since, ultimately, Parliament determines whether political democracy in the country is furthered by granting a choice

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI., Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha…

HELD Storage Facility For Edible Oil Not Allowed Outside Port Area – As regards the pipelines which have been drawn, the appellants may approach the relevant District Coastal Zonal Management Authority within a period of one month from today. The District Coastal Zonal Management Authority will consider any application made in regard to the continued use of the pipeline and take a decision in accordance with law within a further period of six weeks from the date of the receipt of the application.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH K.T.V. HEALTH FOOD PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph, B.V. Nagarathna and J.B.…

Writ Petition – Alternative remedy – mere availability of an alternative remedy of appeal or revision, which the party invoking the jurisdiction of the high court under Article 226 has not pursued, would not oust the jurisdiction of the high court and render a writ petition “not maintainable”.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S GODREJ SARA LEE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. THE EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER-CUM-ASSESSING AUTHORITY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat…

You missed