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

Goods were previously classified (before 1993) under Subheading 8536.90, but a revised classification list, classifying them under subheading 8608, submitted by the appellant, was approved by the competent Authority on 27.08.1993 – After such specific approval of the classification list, it is not proper on the part of the Authorities to invoke Note 2(f) of Section XVII.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH WESTINGHOUSE SAXBY FARMER LIMITED — Appellant Vs. COMMR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE CALCUTTA — Respondent ( Before : S. A. Bobde, CJI., A. S. Bopanna…

A deeper consideration of whether an arbitration agreement exists between the parties must be left to an Arbitrator who is to examine the documentary evidence produced before him in detail after witnesses are cross-examined on the same – This Court set aside the impugned judgment of the Delhi High Court in so far as it conclusively finds that there is an Arbitration Agreement between the parties

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH PRAVIN ELECTRICALS PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. GALAXY INFRA AND ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : R.F. Nariman, B.R. Gavai and Hrishikesh…

Termination of Power Purchase Agreement stayed by NCLT – Residuary jurisdiction of NCLT under Section 60(5)(c) of the IBC provides it a wide discretion to adjudicate questions of law or fact arising from or in relation to the insolvency resolution proceedings – If the jurisdiction of the NCLT were to be confined to actions prohibited by Section 14 of the IBC, there would have been no requirement for the legislature to enact Section 60(5)(c) of the IBC.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED — Appellant Vs. MR. AMIT GUPTA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and M.…

A & C Act – S 2(1)(f) would show that whatever be the transaction between the parties, if it happens to be entered into between persons, at least one of whom is either a foreign national, or habitually resident in, any country other than India; or by a body corporate which is incorporated in any country other than India; or by the Government of a foreign country, the arbitration becomes an international commercial arbitration- This being the case, it is clear that the Delhi High Court had no jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AMWAY INDIA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. RAVINDRANATH RAO SINDHIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : R.F. Nariman and B.R. Gavai, JJ.…

You missed