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)

Murder of disabled person – Cancellation of Bail – – Accused is a person exercising significant political influence and that owing to the same, the informant found it difficult to get an FIR registered against him – That the accused was arrested only following a protest outside a police station demanding his arrest – Thus, the possibility of the accused threatening or otherwise influencing the witnesses, if on bail, cannot be ruled out

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANOJ KUMAR KHOKHAR — Appellant Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Criminal…

Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003 – Ss 12, 13 and 13(6) – N D and P S Act, 1985 – Section 21(b) – Respondent transferred to India on agreement between Government of India and Government of Mauritius on the Transfer of Prisoners – High Court reduced the sentence from 26 years to 10 years – Sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Mauritius in this case is binding on India

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SHAIKH ISTIYAQ AHMED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai,…

Board Resolution be approved by General Body and the resolutions for the years 1995 ­2000 were not traced, it has been commented in the Report that the Board resolution is without authorisation – Respondent is a member of the Society and being entitled to allotment of a plot – Allotment being of the year 2000, construction has also been raised – Appeal dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH VELAGACHARLA JAYARAM REDDY — Appellant Vs. M. VENKATA RAMANA AND OTHERS .ETC. — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI, A.S. Bopanna and Hima…

An award can be set aside only if the award is against the public policy of India. The award can be set aside under Sections 34/37 of the Arbitration Act, if the award is found to be contrary to, (a) fundamental policy of Indian Law; or (b) the interest of India; or (c) justice or morality; or (d) if it is patently illegal.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HARYANA TOURISM LIMITED — Appellant Vs. M/S KANDHARI BEVERAGES LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Word ‘dowry’ and takes in its ambit any kind of property or valuable security, demand for money for construction of house as falling within the definition of the word ‘dowry’ – Trial Court was correct and the husband deserved to be convicted under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC – Appeal partly allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Appellant Vs. JOGENDRA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI, A.S. Bopanna and Hima Kohli, JJ.…

Service Matters

Bank pension scheme – Non­availability of financial resources would not be a defence available to the Bank in taking away the vested rights accrued to the employees that too when it is for their socio­economic security – It is an assurance that in their old age, their periodical payment towards pension shall remain assured – Pension which is being paid to them is not a bounty and it is for the Bank to divert the resources from where the funds can be made available

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE PUNJAB STATE COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED — Appellant Vs. THE REGISTRAR, COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi…

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 227 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 9 Rule 13 – Setting aside of exparte decree – Power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to – It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S GARMENT CRAFT — Appellant Vs. PRAKASH CHAND GOEL — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 – Sections 3(17) and 9(3) – Government Grants Act, 1895 – Transfer of land — Terms of the lease deed though provide for sub-lease for agricultural purposes but sub-lessees can claim no independent rights as a tenure holder – High Court rightly observed that appellants herein being sub-lessees would be tenure holder as per sub-Section 9(3) of the Ceiling Act – Appeal dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HARDEV SINGH — Appellant Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY, KASHIPUR AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari, JJ. ) Civil…

Cancellation of bail – Director of Prosecution in the administration of justice is crucial – He is appointed by the State Government in exercise of powers under Section 25A of the Code of Criminal Procedure – That his is a crucial role is evident from conditions such as in Section 25A (2) of the Code, which stipulates a minimum legal experience of not less than ten years for a person to be eligible to be Directorate of Prosecution and that such an appointment shall be made with the concurrence of the C J of the High Court – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAYABEN — Appellant Vs. TEJAS KANUBHAI ZALA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…

You missed