Latest Post

[MPID Act, S. 2(c) & 2(d)] – Amounts advanced with promise of return and interest qualify as “deposit” accepted by “financial establishment” under the Act. – Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 Section 2(c) and Section 2(d) — Deposit and Financial Establishment — Amounts advanced to individuals with promise of repayment with interest constitute a “deposit” under Section 2(c) and the recipients are “financial establishments” under Section 2(d) of the MPID Act, irrespective of the transaction being termed as a “loan” — The nomenclature of the transaction is not determinative; the essential attributes of the transaction are key. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 432 — Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 72 & 161— Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 473 & 477 — Premature release of a prisoner — Rejection of recommendation — Non-speaking order — Order rejecting premature release must provide reasons and reflect due application of mind — Absence of reasons renders the order bald and impossible to ascertain if relevant factors were considered — Violates principles of natural justice and frustrates judicial review. [Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, S. 3] – No State can levy VAT on inter-State sales; taxation power for inter-State trade vests exclusively with the Union. – Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 269 — Taxes on sale or purchase of goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce — Levied and collected by Union but assigned to States — Parliament’s power to formulate principles for determining when such sale/purchase takes place — State legislature’s power restricted to intra-State sales. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 15 Rule 5 — Striking off defence for non-deposit of rent — This is a drastic consequence and the power to strike off a defence is not to be exercised mechanically — The court must consider whether there has been substantial compliance and whether the default is wilful or contumacious. [ Landlord and Tenant — Eviction Suit — Pleading and Proof Satisfied — In this case, the plaint contained material facts of co-landlord status and eviction grounds — Evidence, including affidavits and documents like share certificates, was provided to support these pleaded facts, fulfilling both pleading and proof requirements.

Deficiency in service – In the absence of any proof of negligence on the part of the appellant at the time of loading of the consignment, the appellant cannot be held responsible if at the port of destination, the products specifications were not the same as certified by the appellant at the time of loading of consignment – In the absence of any clause in the contract to ensure that the goods consigned has to meet the products specifications at the time of loading of consignment, the appellant cannot be held liable for change in specifications of the agricultural produce at the destination port – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SGS INDIA LIMITED — Appellant Vs. DOLPHIN INTERNATIONAL LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

Partition – Joint family properties – Unregistered and unstamped family settlement “Khararunama” – Admissibility in evidence – HELD “Khararunama, being record of the alleged transactions, it may not require to be stamped. a document in the nature of a Memorandum, evidencing a family arrangement already entered into and had been prepared as a record of what had been agreed upon, in order that there are no hazy notions in future, it need not be stamped or registered.”

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KORUKONDA CHALAPATHI RAO AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. KORUKONDA ANNAPURNA SAMPATH KUMAR — Respondent ( Before : K.M Joseph and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ.…

Inams Act is to the effect that nothing in the Act shall in any way be deemed to affect the application of the provisions of the Tenancy Act to any inam or mutual rights and obligations of Inamdar and his tenants, save insofar as the said provisions are in any way inconsistent with the express provisions of this Act. – Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act was inserted initially in the year 1954 and subsequently substituted in 1971 giving overriding effect to such provision. Therefore, an Inamdar under the Inams Act would not have any right of allotment of occupancy rights in view of overriding effect given to Section 38-E.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THOTA SRIDHAR REDDY AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. MANDALA RAMULAMMA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hemant Gupta, JJ.…

Civil Contempt – Seniority list, which is purportedly published in accordance with the order of this Court, is totally in breach of the directions of this Court – A first glance at the list would reveal that various selectees, who have received much less marks, are placed above the selectees who have received higher marks – No hesitation to hold that the nine persons named in order, are guilty of having committed contempt of order of this Court.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH V. SENTHUR AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M. VIJAYAKUMAR, IAS, SECRETARY, TAMIL NADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : L.…

Service Matters

Only issue which is required to be considered is whether the arrears ought to have been restricted to three years preceding the filing of the writ petition? Every time the teachers were not supposed to approach the appropriate authority for getting the benefit as and when there is a revision of pay as per the pay commission recommendations. Appeal dismissed

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KERALEEYA SAMAJAM AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. PRATIBHA DATTATRAY KULKARNI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and A.S.…

Defendants have denied that the plaintiff is their brother or the son of their parents – High Court directed the plaintiff to undergo the DNA test — Respondent cannot compel the plaintiff to adduce further evidence in support of the defendants’ case – In any case, it is the burden on a litigating party to prove his case adducing evidence in support of his plea and the court should not compel the party to prove his case in the manner, suggested by the contesting party

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ASHOK KUMAR — Appellant Vs. RAJ GUPTA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Death in accident – Driven negligently by not maintaining sufficient distance – Compensation – Appeal against Enhancement – It is to be noted that PW–1 herself travelled in the very car and PW–3, who has given statement before the police, was examined as eye–witness – In view of such evidence on record, there is no reason to give weightage to the contents of the First Information Report – High Court has rightly held that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of Eicher van – Appeal dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. CHAMUNDESWARI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. ) Civil…

Loss of dependency – Enhancement of compensation – Merely because claimants were unable to produce documentary evidence to show the monthly income of deceased, same does not justify adoption of lowest tier of minimum wage while computing the income – Deceased was in possession of heavy vehicle driving licence and was driving such vehicle on the day of accident – the income of the deceased at Rs.8000/­ per month for the purpose of loss of dependency – By applying the multiplier of ’16’ the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.14,33,664/­.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CHANDRA @ CHANDA @ CHANDRARAM AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. MUKESH KUMAR YADAV AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R. Subhash Reddy and…

Evidence Act S 92 – Exclusion of evidence or oral agreement – The feigned ignorance about the nature of document cannot be said to be an instance of fraud. In the absence of any plea or proof of fraud, respondent is bound by the written document on which he admitted his signatures and of his wife. There is no oral evidence which could prove fraud, intimidation, illegality or failure of consideration to permit the respondents to lead oral evidence to dispute the sale deed

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PLACIDO FRANCISCO PINTO (D) BY LRS AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. JOSE FRANCISCO PINTO AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and…

You missed