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)

Union of India prayed transferring all writs challenging the constitutional validity of the Payment of Bonus (Amendment) Act, 2015 HELD the prayer for transfer of the subject petitions is declined and all the interim stay orders are vacated while providing that it shall be permissible for the parties to request the respective High Courts for expeditious hearing and disposal .

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH UNION OF INDIA ETC. — Appellant Vs. THE UNITED PLANTERS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHERN INDIA ETC. ETC. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh…

Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004 – Section 42(6) – Audit assessment – Further time – Power of Commissioner/ Assessing Authority — Necessity for referring the matter to three-Judges is to have consistency and clarity in the law of precedents and certainly to avoid having multiple judgements drawing subtle distinction between one another.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX ODISHA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M/S. ESSEL MINING AND INDUSTRIES LTD AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Uday…

PCA & IPC – HELD the recovery of the tickets is found to have not been made in accordance with law, nor the seized tickets could be connected to the three different buses and the conductors manning the said buses (the appellants), it would not be safe to rely upon the unconfirmed tickets to connect them to the appellants – Prosecution did not proceed with application for secondary evidence qua enquiry report.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH JARNAIL SINGH AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Vikram Nath, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Anticipatory Bail- NDPS – 50,000 Tramadol tablets – Expression “reasonable grounds” used in clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 37 would mean credible, plausible and grounds for the Court to believe that the accused person is not guilty of the alleged offence – Bail order releasing the respondent on post-arrest bail, is quashed

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU — Appellant Vs. MOHIT AGGARWAL — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI., Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli, JJ. ) Criminal…

You missed