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.

Writ by victims of fire tragedy – claimed the lives of 65 persons and left 161 or more with burn injuries. -Held that where the plaintiff can prove the accident but cannot prove how it happened to establish negligence on the part of the defendant, such hardship is sought to be avoided by applying the principle of res ipsa loquitor.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANJAY GUPTA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta…

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…

You missed