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)
Service Matters

Summary dismissal of an earlier petition under Article 32 of the Constitution does not bar the present writ petition on grounds of res judicata as there has been no substantive decision on the merits of the issues. HELD Court must be alive to the contemporary reality of “ambush Public Interest Litigations” and interpret the principles of res judicata or constructive res judicata in a manner which does not debar access to justice – Jurisdiction under Article 32 is a fundamental right in and of itself.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NATIONAL CONFEDERATION OF OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF CENTRAL PUBLIC SECTOR ENTERPRISES AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before…

Service Matters

Claim for compassionate appointment must be decided only on the basis of relevant scheme prevalent on date of demise of the employee and subsequent scheme cannot be looked into – Respondent shall not be entitled for appointment on compassionate ground on the basis of the subsequent circular/policy dated 31.08.2016 – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. ASHISH AWASTHI — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ. )…

Rash and negligent act simplicitor and not a case of driving in an inebriated condition which is, undoubtedly despicable – HELD the conviction of the appellant under Sections 279 and 304A IPC is maintained. However, the substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone. Imposition of fine is also affirmed. Besides the fine, an amount of Rs. 3 lakhs which has been deposited by the appellant by way of compensation in the Registry of this Court be transferred to the Motor Accident Tribunal which shall be released by the Tribunal to the widow of the deceased.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SAGAR LOLIENKAR — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF GOA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ. )…

Civil Law – Injunction – No injunction could have been granted without impleading and without giving an opportunity of being heard – High Court granting injunction with respect to 1/7th share in the total plaint schedule properties which has been passed without giving an opportunity of being heard to the appellants and without impleading them as party-defendants in the suit by learned trial Court, is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside – Appeal allowed

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ACQUA BOREWELL PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. SWAYAM PRABHA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Civil…

Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 – Sections 14A and 25 – Jurisdiction of Civil Court — Expression “validity of the decision or the Order” in Section 25 of the Act, would not include a case where, despite a dispute projected, that there was no landlord-tenant relationship, the Authority decides the said issue in the course of the Order of Eviction, under Section 14A, after brushing aside the tenant’s objection relating to his position, viz., that he is not a tenant. In such a situation, the validity is tied-up with the fundamental aspect of absence of power of the Authority to decide on the question of landlord-tenant relationship.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ASSA SINGH (D) BY LRS. — Appellant Vs. SHANTI PARSHAD(D) BY LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : K.M Joseph and S. Ravindra…

Service Matters

Service Code does not stipulate any time period within which the appeal may be preferred to the Board of Directors whose decision is to be final, but it is well settled that no time does not mean any time – Challenge to the order of dismissal from service by way of appeal was after four years and five months, which is certainly highly belated and beyond justifiable time – Without satisfactory explanation justifying the delay, it is difficult to hold that the appeal was preferred within a reasonable time – Order of dismissal uphold.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE CHAIRMAN, STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M.J. JAMES — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Sanjiv Khanna,…

Fixing notional income at Rs.15,000/- per annum for non-earning members is not just and reasonable, Schedule-II is not yet amended – It appropriate to take notional income of the deceased at Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) per annum. Accordingly, when the notional income is multiplied with applicable multiplier ’15’, as prescribed in Schedule-II for the claims under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KURVAN ANSARI ALIAS KURVAN ALI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SHYAM KISHORE MURMU AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : R. Subhash Reddy and…

Service Matters

Mr. Dinkar Gupta was appointed as Director General of Punjab Police – HELD when a person takes a chance and participates, thereafter he cannot, because the result is unpalatable, turn around to contend that the process was unfair or the selection committee was not properly constituted. In case where the petitioner had appeared at an open interview, as the Appellant too had taken a calculated chance in spite of the stakes, that too without protest, and then has belatedly raised the plea of bias and prejudice only when he was not recommended.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MOHD. MUSTAFA — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, Sanjiv Khanna and B.R. Gavai, JJ.…

You missed