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)

Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001- Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 106 A decree passed by the civil court is valid and executable which is not interdicted by the applicability of the Act to the area in question. The Act is applicable to the area in question from the date the notification came into force and it does not bar the decree of the civil court or the pendency of such civil suit.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHANKARLAL NADANI — Appellant Vs. SOHANLAL JAIN — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 2816 of…

No person is entitled to establish a medical college except with the previous permission of the Central Government – Similarly, no medical college can open a new or higher course of study or training, including a postgraduate course of study or training without the previous sanction of the Central Government – Likewise, no medical college can increase its admission capacity in any course of study or training, including a post­graduate course of study or training.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR INDIAN MEDICINE — Appellant Vs. KARNATAKA AYURVEDA MEDICAL COLLEGE AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R.…

Banking – Release of mutual funds – Securities need to be released in favour of the applicant – HELD the applicant shall now furnish bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.100 Crores and it shall further furnish a corporate guarantee to the extent of Rs.300 Crores. The bank guarantee earlier furnished by the applicant to the extent of Rs.344.07 Crores shall stand discharged on the applicant fulfilling the above condition to the satisfaction of the Trial Court concerned.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. IL AND FS SECURITIES SERVICES LTD. AND OTHERS — Respondent IN THE MATTER OF: DALMIA…

Sections 10, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 18A, 18B, 19, 20, 23 and 38 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – HELD the evidence which has already unfolded and above all, the long period of incarceration that the appellant has already undergone, time has arrived when the appellant be enlarged on bail.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAHIR HAK — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 504 – Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 3(i)(x) – Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 – Sections 3 and 11 – Power of court to release certain offenders after admonition – HELD this Court under the 1958 Act itself can pass an order at this stage – It appropriate that the appellant may be released instead of carrying out the sentence after due admonition

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KUNTI KUMARI — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND — Respondent ( Before : S. Abdul Nazeer and Vikram Nath, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Practices and Rules – Dismissal of appeal without reasoning – Impugned order passed by the High Court is a non-speaking and non­reasoned order and even the submissions on behalf of the revenue are not recorded, the impugned order passed by the High Court dismissing the appeal is unsustainable – Matter is remanded to the High Court

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 — Appellant Vs. M/S. BAJAJ HERBALS PRIVATE LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna,…

Service Matters

Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 – Sections 16 and 17 – State Government is not bound by any direction issued by the Central Government which would at worst be mandatory to the Central Universities and the Central Government Colleges receiving funds – Thus, any such decision would obviously be directory to State Government Colleges and Universities, being in the nature of a mere recommendation

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF UTTARAKHAND — Appellant Vs. SUDHIR BUDAKOTI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh, JJ. ) Civil…

Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 – Section 25B(8) – HELD the mere existence of the other properties which are, in fact, denied by the appellant would not enure to the benefit of the respondent in the absence of any pleadings and supporting material before the learned Rent Controller to the effect that they are reasonably suitable for accommodation. embargo under the Enemy Property Act would not be made applicable to the properties in question.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ABID-UL-ISLAM — Appellant Vs. INDER SAIN DUA — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 9444…

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, as inserted by Haryana Act No. 9/1992 -The entire land reserved for common purposes by applying pro-rata cut had to be utilized by the Gram Panchayat for the present and future needs of the village community and that no part of the land can be re-partitioned amongst the proprietors.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF HARYANA — Appellant Vs. JAI SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta…

You missed