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)

Bank guarantee – ICBC, which is a Scheduled Bank, carrying on business in India, with a Bank Guarantee of equivalent amount issued by a “Scheduled Indian Bank” – Hon’ble Justice Indira Banerjee allowed the appeal and Hon’ble Justice V. Ramasubramanian dismiss the Special Leave Petitions as not giving rise to any substantial question of law warranting interference under Article 136 of the Constitution – Appeal referred to Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SEPCO ELECTRIC POWER CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION — Appellant Vs. POWER MECH PROJECTS LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. )…

Service Matters

‘ Creamy layer’ HELD Economic criterion cannot be the sole criterion for identifying ‘creamy layer’ – In spite of Section 5(2) of the 2016 Act making it mandatory for identification and exclusion of ‘creamy layer’ to be on the basis of social, economic and other relevant factors, the State of Haryana has sought to determine ‘creamy layer’ from backward classes solely on the basis of economic criterion and has committed a grave error in doing so

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PICHRA WARG KALYAN MAHASABHA HARYANA (REGD.) AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara…

Quashing of criminal proceedings – Stage of framing of charge – High Court has entered into the appreciation of the evidence and considered whether on the basis of the evidence, the accused is likely to be convicted or not, – HELD it is not a court conducting the trial and/or was not exercising the jurisdiction as an appellate court against the order of conviction or acquittal.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SARANYA — Appellant Vs. BHARATHI AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M.R. Shah, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…

Summoning additional accused – HELD As per the settled preposition of law, the powers under Section 319 CrPC can be exercised at any stage before the final conclusion of the trial. – dismissing the application under Section 319 CrPC submitted on behalf of the complainant to summon the private respondents herein as additional accused are unsustainable and deserve to be quashed and set aside and are accordingly quashed and set aside – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANJEET SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M.R. Shah, JJ. )…

(IPC) – Sections 302, 120B, 147, 148 and 324 – Murder – HELD In the face of appellant’s such identification by name in the testimony of eye witnesses, it can be safely concluded that the failure to conduct the Test Identification Parade (TIP) for the appellant will not vitiate his conviction – Conviction of the appellant u/S 302, 120B, 147, 148 and Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code was upheld – Appeal dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LALA @ ANURAG PRAKASH AASRE — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.…

Service Matters

Reservation – Employees who are members of the SC/ST/OBC – HELD Person is entitled to claim the benefit of reservation in either of the successor State of Bihar or State of Jharkhand but would not be entitled to claim the privileges and benefits of reservation simultaneously in both the States and if that is permitted, it will defeat the mandate of Articles 341(1) and 342(1) of the Constitution.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PANKAJ KUMAR — Appellant Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Ajay Rastogi, JJ. ) Civil…

(IPC) – S 302 r/with S 34 – Murder – Recovery of weapons – Prosecution has not established either through the report of FSL or otherwise, that the blood stains contained in the knife and lathis were that of the deceased – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MADHAV — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 852…

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 24A – Insurance Act, 1938 – Section 64- UM(c) – Fire Insurance Claim – Surveyor report – HELD the reliance placed on the surveyor’s report by the NCDRC without giving credence to the investigation report in the facts and circumstances of the instant case cannot be faulted – Accordingly, the amount as ordered by the NCDRC shall be payable with interest at 9% per annum instead of 12% per annum – Appeal allowed in part.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. — Appellant Vs. M/S. HARESHWAR ENTERPRISES (P) LTD. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and A.S. Bopanna,…

Rented land – Use of land as club for a pavilion is in interest of section of public – Eviction petition – Maintainability – – Therefore, use of land as club for a pavilion is in interest of section of the public – Thus, land let out to a club which for the purpose of construction and use of pavilion falls within the scope of Section 2(f) of the Act and thus eviction petition is maintainable under the Act – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJINDER KUMAR BANSAL AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. )…

Redemption of Mortgage – Decree of foreclosure passed in the suit filed by the mortgagee will not extinguish the right of the mortgagor to redeem land in view of the fact that he was not impleaded as a party in the suit though he has purchased part of the mortgaged property by virtue of registered sale deed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NARAYAN DEORAO JAVLE (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS — Appellant Vs. KRISHNA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. )…

You missed