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)

ADVOCATE SENIOR GOWN – Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 32 and 142 – Making allegations of impropriety against the Institution of the High Court – Withdrawal of Senior Gown – Contempt of Court – This Court views of the High Court but still endeavour to give one more and last chance to the petitioner – In a way this can really be done by recourse to Article 142 of the Constitution of India as there is merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the High Court that there is no real infringement of the fundamental rights of the petitioner – Ends of justice would be served by seeking to temporarily restore the designation of the petitioner for a period of two years from 1.1.2022.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH YATIN NARENDRA OZA — Appellant Vs. HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ. )…

Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 – Sections 14, 15 and 16(1) – Cultivating tenants, right to first purchase the land leased to him – Surrender of tenancy – Notice – Requirement of notice for the prescribed period of three months, to the landlord, and the concerned revenue official is mandatory – This provision, in the form of a procedure enacted for the welfare and protection of a tenant (like the appellant) has to be construed in its literal and plain terms

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MUSUNURI SATYANARAYANA — Appellant Vs. DR. TIRUMALA INDIRA DEVI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ.…

Motor Accident – Permanent disability – Loss of Earning Capacity – – Courts should strive to provide a realistic recompense having regard to the realities of life, both in terms of assessment of the extent of disabilities and its impact including the income generating capacity of the claimant. In cases of similar nature, wherein the claimant is suffering severe cognitive dysfunction and restricted mobility, the Courts should be mindful of the fact that even though the physical disability is assessed at 69%, the functional disability is 100% in so far as claimant’s loss of earning capacity is concerned – Loss of earning capacity must be fixed at 100% – Compensation enhanced to Rs.27,67,800 – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JITHENDRAN — Appellant Vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.…

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 25F – Termination – Claim benefit under Section 25F- Nature of service rendered by the appellants as daily wager for a short period, while upholding the termination of the appellants being in violation of Section 25F of the Act 1947 – It just and reasonable to award a lumpsum monetary compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- to each of the appellants-workmen in full and final satisfaction of the dispute in lieu of right to claim reinstatement with 50% back wages as awarded by the Tribunal.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH K.V. ANIL MITHRA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay…

Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 – Section 3 – Grant of licence to set up a group housing colony – – Principle of First Come First Serve basis adopted in grant of licences is not a valid consideration, the only consequence available was to cancel such licence which have been granted based on the so­called alleged practice which is unsustainable in law and in our considered view no error was committed in passing the order of cancellation of grant of licence to the Appellants under the judgment impugned – Appeal dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANANT RAJ LIMITED (FORMERLY M/S. ANANT RAJ INDUSTRIES LIMITED) — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi…

Specific performance of Agreement – Not to grant the decree of specific performance despite the execution of the agreement to sell is proved; part sale consideration is proved and the plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract would encourage the dishonesty. In such a situation, the balance should tilt in favour of the plaintiff rather than in favour of the defendant – executant of the agreement to sell, while exercising the discretion judiciously. HELD Section 10(a) and now the specific performance is no longer a discretionary relief. As such the question whether the said provision would be applicable retrospectively or not and/or should be made applicable to all pending proceedings including appeals is kept open. However, at the same time, as observed hereinabove, the same can be a guide.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUGHAR SINGH — Appellant Vs. HARI SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Aniruddha Bose, JJ. )…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 452, 323, 325, 504, 506(2) and 114 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 482 – Criminal proceedings quashed – Appeal against – Observation made by the High Court that in view of bar under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and no sanction was obtained is concerned cannot be ground to quash criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure – On the ground of delay in lodging FIR/complaint, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed under Section 482 of the Cr P C

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHANTABEN BHURABHAI BHURIYA — Appellant Vs. ANAND ATHABHAI CHAUDHARI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Aniruddha Bose, JJ. ) Criminal…

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 9A – Transferring the respective workman from Dewas to Chopanki, which is at about 900 Kms. away is in violation of Section 9A read with Fourth Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act and is arbitrary, mala fide and victimization – By such transfer, their status as “workman” would be changed to that of “supervisor” – By such a change after their transfer to Chopanki and after they work as supervisor they will be deprived of the beneficial provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and, therefore, the nature of service conditions/service would be changed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CAPARO ENGINEERING INDIA LIMITED — Appellant Vs. UMMED SINGH LODHI AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. )…

Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 14 and 226 – Allotment of quarters – Ex-employees of Mills – Right to equality – No justification at all in treating 318 ex-employees different from those 134 ex-employees who were allotted 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost – As such the equals are treated unequally and therefore, when the equals are treated unequally, there is a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution and therefore, the appellants were entitled to the relief sought even in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MODIFIED VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT SCHEME OF 2002 OF AZAM JAHI MILL WORKERS ASSOCIATION — Appellant Vs. NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent (…

Service Matters

Military Engineering Service (Non-Industrial Class III and IV Posts) Rules, 1971 – Seniority – Determination of – In the matter of adjudging seniority of the candidates selected in one and the same selection, placement in the order of merit can be adopted as a principle for determination of seniority but where the selections are held separately by different recruiting authorities, the principle of initial date of appointment/continuous officiation may be the valid principle to be considered for adjudging inter se seniority of the officers in the absence of any rule or guidelines in determining seniority to the contrary.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUDHIR KUMAR ATREY — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ. )…

You missed