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.

(CrPC) – Sections 273, 275, 276, 278, 279, 299, 367 and 391 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 33 – Recording of evidence – Separate Trial – Whether the evidence recorded in a separate trial of co-accused can be read and considered by the appellate court in a criminal appeal arising out of another separate trial conducted against another accused, though for the commission of the same offence – HELD the scope of the appellate court’s power does not go beyond the evidence available before it in the form of a trial court record of a particular case, unless section 367 or section 391 of Cr.P.C. comes into play in a given case, which are meant for further inquiry or additional evidence while dealing with any criminal appeal.

(2021) 13 SCALE 109 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH A.T. MYDEEN AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT — Respondent ( Before : Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud,…

(CrPC) – Section 378 – Appeal in case of acquittal – – An Appellate Court shall not expect the trial court to act in a particular way depending upon the sensitivity of the case – Rather it should be appreciated if a trial court decides a case on its own merit despite its sensitivity – District judiciary is expected to be the foundational court, and therefore, should have the freedom of mind to decide a case on its own merit

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MOHAN @SRINIVAS @ SEENA @TAILOR SEENA — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh,…

Representation of People Act, 1951 – Sections 81, 83 and 86 – Conduct of Election Rules, 1962 – Section 94A – Dismissal of election petition – Appeal against – Non-submission of Form 25 would not lead to the dismissal of election petition – This was a curable defect and the learned Judge trying the election petition ought to have granted an opportunity to the appellant to file an affidavit in support of the petition in Form 25 in addition to the already existing affidavit filed with the election petition – Non-submission of Form 25 would not lead to the dismissal of the election petition – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH A. MANJU — Appellant Vs. PRAJWAL REVANNA @ PRAJWAL R AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh, JJ.…

Service Matters

Prosecution has failed to prove the charges under Sections 409, 420 and 477A IPC against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt. As a necessary corollary thereto, his conviction under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act can also not be sustained HELD standard of proof to establish a misconduct in a domestic enquiry i.e. even preponderance of evidence, is drastically different to those of proving a ‘criminal charge’ beyond any reasonable doubt Therefore not entitle him to initiate a second round of lis to seek his reinstatement or to claim other service benefits from the Bank.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH N. RAGHAVENDER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, CBI — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI, Surya Kant and Hima Kohli, JJ.…

(IPC) – Section 477A – Falsification of accounts – the prosecution must, therefore, prove—(a) that the accused destroyed, altered, mutilated or falsified the books, electronic records, papers, writing, valuable security or account in question; (b) the accused did so in his capacity as a clerk, officer or servant of the employer; (c) the books, papers, etc. belong to or are in possession of his employer or had been received by him for or on behalf of his employer; (d) the accused did it wilfully and with intent to defraud.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH  N. RAGHAVENDER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, CBI — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI, Surya Kant and Hima Kohli, JJ.…

(IPC) – S 420 – Cheating & dishonestly inducing delivery of property – the mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution under Section 420 unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction. It is equally important that for the purpose of holding a person guilty under Section 420, the evidence adduced must establish beyond reasonable doubt, mens rea on his part.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH  N. RAGHAVENDER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, CBI — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI, Surya Kant and Hima Kohli, JJ.…

(IPC) – Section 409 – Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent -‘criminal breach of trust’ is defined under Section 405 IPC which provides, inter alia, that whoever being in any manner entrusted with property or with any dominion over a property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property contrary to law, or in violation of any law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or contravenes any legal contract, express or implied, etc. shall be held to have committed criminal breach of trust

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH N. RAGHAVENDER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, CBI — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI, Surya Kant and Hima Kohli, JJ.…

Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 45 and 47 and 67 – Proof of signature and handwriting of person alleged to have signed or written document produced – Under Section 67, if a document is alleged to be signed by any person, the signature of the said person must be proved to be in his handwriting, and for proving such a handwriting under Sections 45 and 47 of the Act the opinions of experts and of persons acquainted with the handwriting of the person concerned are made relevant.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MURTHY AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. C. SARADAMBAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Civil…

(NDPS) – Sections 8, 21 and 50 – Recovery of smack from motorcycle – Substance weighed 900gms – No incriminating substance was recovered during the personal search – Argument of non­compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act – In the case of personal search only, the provisions of Section 50 of the Act is required to be complied with but not in the case of vehicle

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KALLU KHAN — Appellant Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and J.K. Maheshwari, JJ.Z ) Criminal Appeal No. 1605…

Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind – not a fit case for grant bail.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LAXMAN PRASAD PANDEY — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and A.S.…

You missed