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.

Termination – Reinstatement and back wages – Termination of the workman in breach of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act- When the appointment was purely on contractual basis and on a fixed salary/honorarium of Rs.500/- per month, the order of reinstatement with back wages was not warranted and instead if the lumpsum compensation is awarded in lieu of reinstatement and back wages as observed hereinabove, it will meet the ends of justice

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION — Appellant Vs. KALAWATI PANDURANG FULZELE — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 4 and 18 – Land acquisition – Compensation – Determination of market value – High Court has erred in law in holding that since the land of the sale exemplars is of irrigated agricultural land whereas the land acquired is unirrigated, is not the reasonable yardstick to determine market value of the land as the land in question is close to already developed area – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MADHUKAR S/O GOVINDRAO KAMBLE AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. VIDARBHA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and V.…

Contract with respect to Mega projects HELD Considering the special peculiarities of such foreign sovereign funded development contracts, which can be envisaged and exist only due to the availability of the investment and willingness of the foreign sovereign country to finance such infrastructure project, the said contracts assume the different characteristics. Therefore, there shall be different considerations so far as the judicial interference is concerned between the foreign funded contracts and the ordinary public works contracts funded from public exchequer.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NATIONAL HIGH SPEED RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED — Appellant Vs. MONTECARLO LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna, JJ.…

Maharashtra Legislative Assembly Rules – Rules 8, 53 and 106 – Quashing of Maharashtra Assembly’s Resolution to Suspend – One ­year suspension is worse than “expulsion”, “disqualification” or “resignation” — insofar as the right of the constituency to be represented before the House/Assembly is concerned – In that, long suspension is bound to affect the rights harsher than expulsion wherein

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ASHISH SHELAR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE MAHARASHTRA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and C.T.…

Service Matters

Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 – Clause 8.1, Section 1, Part A of the First Schedule – Grade pay – High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the Government policies in the form of Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme which was after accepting the Sixth Central Pay Commission

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. K. SUDHEESH KUMAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Sanjiv…

Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 – Section 56(1)(a)(b) – Order of externment – Impugned Judgment and order of the High Court shows that unfortunately, the Division Bench did not notice that an order of externment is not an ordinary measure and it must be resorted to sparingly and in extraordinary circumstances – Order of externment set aside.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DEEPAK S/O LAXMAN DONGRE — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka,…

Haryana (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 – Sections 5(1), 7(2), 7(3) and 11 – Suit for possession – Expiry of lease term – Statutory tenant – Jurisdiction of Civil Court – Section 11 of the Act has an overriding effect to the provisions of other laws. That being so, the jurisdiction indeed of a civil Court is impliedly barred from the field covered specifically by the provisions of the Act 1973 and that being the complete code determining the rights of a tenant/landlord to the exclusion of the other laws –

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUBHASH CHANDER AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M/S BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED. (BPCL) AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay…

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Sections 2(4) and 44A – Execution of foreign decree – Held the District Court or the High Court in its ordinary original civil jurisdiction is competent to exercise power for execution of decree, including money decree of the foreign Court of reciprocating jurisdiction, provided other conditions are complied with as contemplated under Section 44A of the Code.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MESSER GRIESHEIM GMBH (NOW CALLED AIR LIQUIDE DEUTSCHLAND GMBH) — Appellant Vs. GOYAL MG GASES PRIVATE LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi…

You missed