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)

Electricity Act, 2003 – Sections 2, 2(8), 9 and 24(2) – A combined reading of Section 9 and Clause (8) of Section 2 of the said Act would reveal that a person is entitled to construct, maintain or operate a captive generating plant – Such a plant should be primarily for his own use

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH CHHATTISGARH STATE POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. CHHATTISGARH STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao…

If an aggrieved person is not in a domestic relationship with the respondent – but has at any point of time lived so or had the right to live and has been subjected to domestic violence or is later subjected to domestic violence on account of the domestic relationship, is entitled to file an application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH PRABHA TYAGI — Appellant Vs. KAMLESH DEVI — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 511 of…

Depositories Act, 1996 – As per the 1996 Regulations, the pledgor/pawnor is not entitled to sell the pledged/pawned securities – the pawnor under the Contract Act and the common law has the right to redeem the pledged goods till ‘actual sale’ – Sale by the pawnee to self does not defeat the right of redemption of the pawnor – It may amount to conversion in law

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED — Appellant Vs. VENKATESWARLU KARI AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ. )…

Service Matters

HELD according to the said University, though the employment was contractual but the employee was entitled to get all the benefits of a regular employee – Appellant’s services could not have been terminated without following the principles of natural justice – Appellant is directed to be reinstated with continuity in service

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH K. RAGUPATHI — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai, JJ.…

You missed