Latest Post

Expression ‘date of this Notification’ means date of publication in Official Gazette – Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 — Section 3 — Notification — Publication in Official Gazette — Essential requirement for enforceability — Delegated legislation requires publication for accessibility, notice, accountability and solemnity — Not an empty formality but transforms executive decision into law — Strict compliance with publication requirement is a condition precedent — Law must be promulgated or published in a recognisable way. (Paras 16, 17, 18, 19) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Section 60(5)(c) — Jurisdiction of Adjudicating Authority — Declaration of title to trademark — NCLT exceeded its jurisdiction by declaring title to trademark “Gloster” in favour of the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) while adjudicating an application under Section 60(5) of the IBC, as the issue of trademark title was a highly contentious dispute beyond the scope of insolvency proceedings and not directly related to the CIRP. Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 — Building and Other Construction Workers’ Welfare Cess Act, 1996 — Applicability — Cess could not be levied or collected before the constitution of Welfare Boards, as their constitution is a condition precedent for the implementation of these Acts. Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 — Section 3(3A) — Amendment Act, 2020 — Retrospective validation of actions — Power to grant license includes power to modify, suspend, revoke, or delicense — Delicensing of land for commercial purposes after it was initially licensed for residential use is permissible. Factories Act, 1948 — Section 59(2) — Overtime wages calculation — “Ordinary rate of wages” — Includes basic wages plus all allowances worker is entitled to, excluding only bonus and overtime wages — Compensatory allowances like House Rent Allowance (HRA), Transport Allowance (TA), Clothing and Washing Allowance (CWA), and Small Family Allowance (SFA) are includible.

Succession Act, 1925 – Section 63 – Execution of unprivileged Wills — The person claiming to be scribe of the Will as well as the two attesting witnesses deposed to support the case of the original plaintiff, but both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court disbelieved their testimony. The thumb impression of ‘K’ was not matched. There was contradiction in the evidences of attesting witnesses as regards the place of execution. The requirement of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 cannot be said to have been fulfilled by mechanical compliance of the stipulations – – An enquiry of such nature was impermissible while hearing an appeal under S 100 of the CPC

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF HARYANA — Appellant Vs. HARNAM SINGH (DEAD) THR. LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose,…

Even the version of a single witness, if his testimony is found reliable by the Court, can be the foundation of the order of conviction – HELD Order of conviction and sentence recorded against original accused A1, A6, A7, A8, A10 and A13 by the Trial Court is thus restored – Appeals partly allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF RAJASTHAN — Appellant Vs. BABLU @ OM PRAKASH — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Ajay Rastogi, JJ. ) Criminal…

Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 – Section 30 – Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Appeal against the order of Recovery Officer – Limitation – Section 5 of the Limitation Act shall not be applicable to the appeal against the order of Recovery Officer as provided under Section 30 of the Act, 1993.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AVNEESH CHANDAN GADGIL AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Sanjiv Khanna,…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – 147, 149, 302, 325, 324 and 323 – Murder – Voluntarily causing hurt – Reduction of sentence – There is a contradiction between the oral testimony of the witnesses and the medical evidence – HELD This Court convert the conviction under Sections 302/149 to 326/149 and sentence from life imprisonment to seven years.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VIRAM @ VIRMA — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. )…

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 4 and 18 – Land Acquisition – Determination of Market Value/Compensation – HELD The judgment and award passed by the Reference Court in that case determining the market value/compensation at Rs.15,402/- per acre has attained the finality and the State has accepted the same by withdrawing the appeal against the said judgment and award – Therefore, in the present circumstances, the appellants shall be entitled to the compensation at Rs.15,402/- per acre – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANIL KUMAR SOTI AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. THROUGH COLLECTOR BIJNORE (U.P.) — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Sanjiv…

Division Bench of the High Court has not at all considered and/or given any specific findings on the possession being taken over by the Tehsildar on 25.04.1988. There is no discussion at all on the aspect whether the possession taken over by the Tehsildar. It appears that solely on the ground that the payment of compensation has not been made and ad interim order was operating, the High Court has quashed and set aside the orders passed by the Competent Authority as well as the First Appellate Court. HELD Remanded to High Court

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SAKHI BEWA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ.…

Service Matters

Service Law – Charge of causing loss – Recovery – Whether the High Court ought to have maintained the punishment order for recovery of Rs.2,46,922.56, which was also held to be proved by the Enquiry Officer – Held, It is required to be noted that in so far as the charge of causing loss to the extent of Rs.2,46,922.56, it was held to be proved by the Enquiry Officer

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UTTAR PRADESH FOREST CORPORATION LUCKNOW AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. VIJAY KUMAR YADAV AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V.…

You missed