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)

Restraining of arrest – Text of the order of High Court did not contain any direction restraining the arrest – Oral observations in court are in the course of a judicial discourse -Absent a written record of what has transpired in the course of a judicial proceeding, it would set a dangerous precedent if the parties and the investigating officer were expected to rely on unrecorded oral observations – High Court of issuing oral direction restraining the arrest of first respondent was irregular – Order set aside – Appeal allowed

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SALIMBHAI HAMIDBHAI MENON — Appellant Vs. NITESHKUMAR MAGANBHAI PATEL AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M.R. Shah, JJ.…

Appellant has raised false pleas and attempted to mislead Court, while the officials of NOIDA have not acted bona fide in the discharge of their duties – Appellant has stooped to the point of producing a fabricated sanctioned plan – Therefore, This Court confirm the directions of the High Court including the order of demolition and for sanctioning prosecution – Illegal Construction – Violation of building norms – Sanction of prosecution – Reimbursement to flat owners – Conclusion and directions

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUPERTECH LIMITED — Appellant Vs. EMERALD COURT OWNER RESIDENT WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M.R.…

Mental and physical torture and demands of dowry – Reduction of sentence – Compensation to wife and children – If the appellant is showing remorse and is willing to make arrangements for second wife and his two children born out of the wedlock – This Court not like to come in the way of such an arrangement, which should be beneficial to wife and her children – Object of any criminal jurisprudence is reformative in character and to take care of the victim. reduce the sentence to the period undergone in case the appellant pays to second wife for her benefit and her children’s benefit a sum of Rs.3.00 lakhs

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SAMAUL SK. — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. )…

Service Matters

Principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be applied merely on basis of designation – Basic nature of work of a Stenographer remained by and large the same whether they were working for an officer in the Secretariat or for an officer in a subordinate office – absolute equality ought not to be given – If one may say, there would have been no requirement to make these separate recommendations if everyone was to be treated on parity on every aspect.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. MANOJ KUMAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.…

HELD Prosecution stands proved against accused-P and accused-S and their appeals deserve to be dismissed while the appeals preferred by accused-I and accused-K deserve acceptance – Accused-I and accused-K be released forthwith unless their custody is required in connection with any other offence – Ordered accordingly.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANDEEP — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Ajay Rastogi, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 1613…

(IPC) – S 302 r/with S 34 – Arms Act, 1959 – S 25 – Murder by Gunshot – Fired fatal shot from roof of house – Evidence – Appeal against conviction and sentence – Statements of eyewitnesses are quite cogent and consistent with the earliest version recorded in the form of First Information Report – Trajectory of entry of bullet as found in Medical Report is also quite consistent with the version that deceased was shot from a height i.e. the roof of the house – Prosecution stands proved

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANDEEP — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Ajay Rastogi, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 1613…

HELD Therefore, in the absence of any evidence to show that such records were not maintained properly, the official record containing entries of ownership and possession would carry the presumption of correctness – In view of the transfer of land on 10.10.1956 followed by delivery of possession on 19.3.1958 and continuous assertion of possession thereof, it leads to the unequivocal finding that appellants are owners and in possession of the suit land.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. S. NARASIMHULU NAIDU (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul…

Service Matters

Post of Police Constable- Certain types of offences, like molestation of women, or trespass and beating up, assault, causing hurt or grievous hurt, (with or without use of weapons), of victims, in rural settings, can also be indicative of caste or hierarchy-based behaviour more so, in the case of recruitment for the police force, who are under a duty to maintain order, and tackle lawlessness, since their ability to inspire public confidence is a bulwark to society’s security – Appointment declined – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH COMMISSIONER OF POLICE — Appellant Vs. RAJ KUMAR — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

Murder – Bail – Cancellation of – Habitual offender – Hatching conspiracy from the jail – There is a high possibility of threat and danger to the life and safety of complainant and his family members, as is evident from the criminal history of accused, detailed – Bail cancelled – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HARJIT SINGH — Appellant Vs. INDERPREET SINGH @ INDER AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M.R. Shah, JJ.…

Service Matters

EPF Pension – Principal questions arise for consideration are whether there would be a cut-off date under paragraph 11(3) of the Employees Pension Scheme and whether the decision in R.C. Gupta & Ors. Etc. etc. vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Employees Provident Fund Organization & Ors. Etc., (2018) 4 SCC 809 would be the governing principle on the basis of which all these matters must be disposed of. Referred to a larger bench.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION AND ETC. — Appellant Vs. SUNIL KUMAR B AND ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and…

You missed