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)

Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 – Section 45 – Grant of occupancy rights – Scope and purport of the two Acts being different, termination of the proceedings under the Karnataka (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 in regard to grant of occupancy rights cannot bar an enquiry to establish the claim under Section 45 of the Act, 1961 by the Land Tribuna

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH PILLAMMA (DEAD) AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M. RAMAIAH REDDY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and C.T.…

Murder – Life imprisonment – Appeal against reversing the order of acquittal – there are glaring contradictions between the testimony of even these two witnesses on the type of material object used and even on the role of A­2, the very foundation of the case of the prosecution stood shaken –

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH RAMABORA @ RAMABORAIAH AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. ) Criminal…

HELD one transaction of sale of software and once it is accepted that the software put in the CD is ‘goods’, then there cannot be any separate service element in the transaction. We are saying so because even otherwise the user is put in possession and full control of the software. It amounts to ‘deemed sale’ which would not attract service tax.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX DELHI — Appellant Vs. QUICK HEAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and J.B. Pardiwala, JJ.…

You missed