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.

Furlough – Multiple Murders – Death sentence reduced to life imprisonment by the Hon’ble President of India – If the person is not to get any remission and has to remain in prison for whole of the reminder of his natural life, that does not, as a corollary, means that his right to seek furlough is foreclosed

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ATBIR — Appellant Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…

Service Matters

Two reserved category candidates having more marks than the general category candidates appointed, were entitled to the appointment in the general category and the seats reserved for OBC category were required to be filled in from and amongst the remaining candidates belonging to the OBC category

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SANDEEP CHOUDHARY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 7, 8 and 16 – Group of companies doctrine – An arbitration agreement which has been entered into by a company within a group of companies, can bind its non-signatory affiliates or sister concerns if the circumstances demonstrate a mutual intention of the parties to bind both the signatory and affiliated, non-signatory parties.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED — Appellant Vs. M/S DISCOVERY ENTERPRISES PRTIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y.…

Service Matters

LIC recruitment – Regularization – All persons who are found to be eligible on the above norm shall be entitled to compensation computed at the rate of Rs 50,000 for every year of service or part thereof – Payment of compensation at the above rate shall be in lieu of reinstatement, and in full and final settlement of all claims and demands of the workers in lieu of regularisation or absorption.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH RANBIR SINGH — Appellant Vs. SK ROY, CHAIRMAN, LIFE INSURANCE CORP. OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud,…

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Sections 7 and 12A – Real estate project – the Promoter has filed a specific undertaking specifying therein that the cost of the flat would not be escalated and that he would honour the BBA signed by the previous management – Promoter is permitted to complete the project as per the deliberations.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANAND MURTI — Appellant Vs. SONI INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai, JJ. )…

Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958 – Section 9(a), Articles 20(a) and 45(f) – Once a single instrument has been charged under a correct charging provision of the Statute, namely Article 20(a), the Revenue cannot split the instrument into two, because of the reduction in the stamp duty facilitated by a notification of the Government issued under Section 9(a)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ASSET RECONSTRUCTION CO. (INDIA) LIMITED — Appellant Vs. CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. )…

You missed