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)

Held, Merely having an explicit clause may not be sufficient to make time the essence of the contract – As the contract was spread over a long tenure, the intention of the parties to provide for extensions surely reinforces the fact that timely performance was necessary – Contractual clauses having extension procedure and imposition of liquidated damages, are good indicators that ‘time was not the essence of the contract’

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH WELSPUN SPECIALTY SOLUTIONS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS REMI METALS GUJARAT LIMITED) — Appellant Vs. OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED — Respondent ( Before…

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 34 and 37 – Arbitration Appeal – Jurisdiction of High Court – Jurisdiction in a first appeal arising out of a decree in a civil suit is distinct from the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 37 of the 1996 Act arising from the disposal of a petition challenging an arbitral award under Section 34 of the 1996 Act

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PUNJAB STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M/S RAMESH KUMAR AND COMPANY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr.…

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Repudiation of claim – When the appellant was aware of the earlier insurance policy obtained from IFFCO-TOKIO by the respondent, there was no reason for not asking for such hydrology data of the previous year – As such, it cannot be said that there was non-disclosure of hydrology data or any fraud from the side of the respondent, as is projected by the appellant so as to repudiate the claim – There was no non-disclosure or fraud, as pleaded by the appellant to repudiate the claim – Appeal dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED — Appellant Vs. MALANA POWER COMPANY LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.…

Real Estate ( R and D ) Act, 2016 – S 3(1) – Prior registration of real estate project with Real Estate Regulatory Authority – HELD its application is retroactive in character and the projects already completed or to which the completion certificate has been granted are not under its fold and therefore, vested or accrued rights, if any, in no manner are affected. It will apply after getting the ongoing projects and future projects registered under Section 3 to prospectively follow the mandate of the Act .

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M/S. NEWTECH PROMOTERS AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UP AND OTHER ETC — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit,…

(CrPC) – S 482 – (IPC) – S 385 – Extortion – When a specific role was attributed to the accused, the High Court could not have quashed the FIR under Section 482 of the CrPC – cannot place reliance on a “draft charge-sheet” which is yet to be placed before the Magistrate to quash the criminal proceedings under Section 482.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH  JITUL JENTILAL KOTECHA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS ETC — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and B.V. Nagarathna,…

(IPC) – S 307 read with S 34 – Attempt to murder – Appeal against conviction and sentence – When the deadly weapon – dagger has been used, there was a stab injury on the stomach and near the chest which can be said to be on the vital part of the body and the nature of injuries caused, it is rightly held that the appellants have committed the offence under Section 307 IPC

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SADAKAT KOTWAR AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and S. Bopanna, JJ. ) Criminal…

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 – Illegal sand mining – Section 21(5) of the MMDR Act empowers the State Government to recover the price of the illegally-mined mineral, in addition to recovery of rent, royalty or tax – Penalty recommended by the Central Empowered Committee ‘CEC’ for illegal sand mining is in addition to the penalty that can be imposed by the State Government in terms of Section 21(5) of the Act

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH BAJRI LEASE LOI HOLDERS WELFARE SOCIETY THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L.…

Chennai City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 – Section 2(4)(ii)(b) – Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1972 – Section 9 – Rent and eviction – While interpreting the expression “actual physical possession of land and building” would mean and require the tenant to be in actual physical possession – Rent and eviction – While interpreting the expression “actual physical possession of land and building” would mean and require the tenant to be in actual physical possession

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NATIONAL COMPANY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER — Appellant Vs. THE TERRITORY MANAGER, BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before :…

Service Matters

Service Law – Misconduct – Quantum of punishment – Scope of judicial review on the quantum of punishment is available but with a limited scope – Where the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is found to be shocking to the conscience of the Court, normally the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority should be directed to reconsider the question of imposition of penalty – after setting aside the penalty order, it is to be left to the disciplinary/appellate authority to take a call

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. EX. CONSTABLE RAM KARAN — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ.…

You missed