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 168 – Just Compensation – Section 168 of the Act deals with the concept of “just compensation” and the same has to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability on acceptable legal standard – claimants cannot expect a wind fall but compensation so granted cannot be PITTANCE

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJ BALA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. RAKEJA BEGAM AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. ) Civil…

Promissory Estoppel – Doctrine of estoppel will not be applied against the State in its governmental, public or sovereign capacity – to permit an estoppel to be operated against the legislative functions of the Parliament is a fallacy – Claim of the appellants on estoppel is without merit and deserves to be rejected.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S HERO MOTOCORP LIMITED — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. )…

(IPC) – Sections 302 and 149 – Murder – Non-recovery of the weapons cannot be a ground to discard the evidence of the injured eye witnesses -HELD in order to make culpable homicide as murder the act by which death is caused should fall not only under any one or more of clauses firstly to fourthly under Section 300, IPC but they should also not fall under any of the five exceptions to Section 300, IPC –

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GURMAIL SINGH AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ.…

Education – Provisional admission to post-graduate medical courses – Schedule for admission to the post-graduate medical courses must be followed strictly leaving no discretion to any authority to permit admissions over the cut-off date under schedule for admission to post-graduate medical courses

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BOARD OF GOVERNORS IN SUPERSESSION OF MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. DR. PRIYAMBADA SHARMA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ajay…

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Sections 166 and 168 – Death in accident – Enhancement of compensation – While awarding the loss of dependency, the High Court has not awarded/considered the future prospects at all – also erred in reducing the interest from 9% p.a. to 6% p.a. entitled to 7.5 per cent interest p a.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SARUP SINGH @ RAM SARUP — Appellant Vs. HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND ORS. — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and…

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 4 – Acquisition of land – Determination of compensation – Most of the sale deeds relied upon by the landowners are much prior to the date of Section 4 notification (ranging between 1992 to 1994) – Original landowners/claimants shall be entitled to the compensation considering the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 1,000/- per square yard.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RADHEY SHAM — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. ) Civil…

You missed