Latest Post

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 319 — Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence — Application for summoning additional accused — High Court quashed summons issued against them — Whether High Court was justified — Held, no. — Evidence of eyewitnesses, though prima facie, suggested complicity of the applicant, assigning specific role and indicating presence at scene armed with weapon of offence — High Court applied standard of conviction rather than standard of satisfaction required for summoning — Standard for summoning is more than prima facie case but less than conviction — Summoning order restored. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Section 106 — Notice terminating tenancy — Service by registered post — Return with endorsement “ND” (Not Delivered) — General Clauses Act, 1897 — Section 27 — Deemed service — High Court set aside ejectment decree solely on ground of “ND” endorsement, misinterpreting deemed service provisions — Supreme Court held High Court erred in not considering Section 27 of GC Act regarding deemed service by registered post. Pension Law — Family Pension — Eligibility of ‘Substitutes’ in Railways — deceased husband of the appellant was appointed as a ‘Substitute Waterman’ and died in harness after serving for 9 years, 8 months, and 26 days — Railways denied family pension on the grounds that his service was not regularized and did not meet the 10-year qualifying period for family pension — Appellant contended that as per Indian Railway Establishment Manual Vol-I, Rule 1515 and Railway Service (Pension) Rules, 1993, especially Rule 75(2)(a), substitutes with continuous service of one year are entitled to family pension. Held, deceased had acquired temporary status and completed more than one year of continuous service, thus eligible for family pension. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — Section 2(2) — Exclusion of Scheduled Tribes — The Act does not apply to members of Scheduled Tribes unless the Central Government directs otherwise by notification. Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) — Section 18(2) — Conciliation proceedings — Referring time-barred claims — Time-barred claims can be referred to conciliation as the expiry of the limitation period does not extinguish the right to recover the amount, and a settlement agreement reached through conciliation is akin to a contract for repayment of a time-barred debt, recognized under Section 25(3) of the Contract Act

Cheating – Criminal breach of trust – Simply because there is a remedy provided for breach of contract or arbitral proceedings initiated at the instance of the appellants, that does not by itself clothe the court to come to a conclusion that civil remedy is the only remedy, and the initiation of criminal proceedings, in any manner, will be an abuse of the process of the court

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRITI SARAF AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Indu Malhotra and Ajay Rastogi,…

Nature of modification which has been made by the High Court order in the form of an ad-hoc interim arrangement is exceeding its jurisdiction, and not within the realm of power of judicial review to be exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is well settled that by an interim order, even the final relief ordinarily should not be granted.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PUNE METROPOLITAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (PMRDA) — Appellant Vs. PRAKASH HARKACHAND PARAKH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Indu Malhotra and Ajay Rastogi,…

One-time lease rent constitutes payment for the entirety of the period of lease covered by the document – Therefore, that component of the amount which represents the remainder period after the plot is sold in terms of this Order, ought not to be charged by NOIDA from the Petitioners

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH HAMPSHIRE HOTELS AND RESORTS (NOIDA) PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. RITU MAHESHWARI, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (NOIDA) — Respondent (…

(NI) – Ss 138, 139 – Dishonour of cheque – Presumption – It is well settled that the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act are quasi criminal in nature, and the principles which apply to acquittal in other criminal cases are not applicable in the cases instituted under the Act.HELD Section 139 of the Act, a presumption is raised that the holder of a cheque received the cheque for the discharge of debt

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUMETI VIJ — Appellant Vs. M/S PARAMOUNT TECH FAB INDUSTRIES — Respondent ( Before : Indu Malhotra and Ajay Rastogi, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Customs Act, 1962 – Section 28(4) – Recovery proceedings – Power of recovery on “the proper officer” – Where one officer has exercised his powers of assessment, the power to order re-assessment must also be exercised by the same officer or his successor and not by another officer of another department though he is designated to be an officer of the same rank

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M/S CANON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS — Respondent ( Before : S. A. Bobde, CJI., A.S. Bopanna and V.…

Section 138 of the NI Act does not speak about the joint liability – Even in case of a joint liability, in case of individual persons, a person other than a person who has drawn the cheque on an account maintained by him, cannot be prosecuted for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. Two private individuals cannot be said to be “other association of individuals”

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ALKA KHANDU AVHAD — Appellant Vs. AMAR SYAMPRASAD MISHRA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M. R. Shah,…

(IPC) – Ss 323, 504 & 506 – Voluntarily causing hurt -Trial courts have the power to not merely decide on acquittal or conviction of the accused person after the trial, but also the duty to nip frivolous litigations in the bud even before they reach the stage of trial by discharging the accused in fit cases

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KRISHNA LAL CHAWLA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Mohan M. Shantanagouda and R. Subhash…

You missed