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.

Held, Merely having an explicit clause may not be sufficient to make time the essence of the contract – As the contract was spread over a long tenure, the intention of the parties to provide for extensions surely reinforces the fact that timely performance was necessary – Contractual clauses having extension procedure and imposition of liquidated damages, are good indicators that ‘time was not the essence of the contract’

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH WELSPUN SPECIALTY SOLUTIONS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS REMI METALS GUJARAT LIMITED) — Appellant Vs. OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED — Respondent ( Before…

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 34 and 37 – Arbitration Appeal – Jurisdiction of High Court – Jurisdiction in a first appeal arising out of a decree in a civil suit is distinct from the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 37 of the 1996 Act arising from the disposal of a petition challenging an arbitral award under Section 34 of the 1996 Act

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PUNJAB STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M/S RAMESH KUMAR AND COMPANY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr.…

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Repudiation of claim – When the appellant was aware of the earlier insurance policy obtained from IFFCO-TOKIO by the respondent, there was no reason for not asking for such hydrology data of the previous year – As such, it cannot be said that there was non-disclosure of hydrology data or any fraud from the side of the respondent, as is projected by the appellant so as to repudiate the claim – There was no non-disclosure or fraud, as pleaded by the appellant to repudiate the claim – Appeal dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED — Appellant Vs. MALANA POWER COMPANY LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.…

Real Estate ( R and D ) Act, 2016 – S 3(1) – Prior registration of real estate project with Real Estate Regulatory Authority – HELD its application is retroactive in character and the projects already completed or to which the completion certificate has been granted are not under its fold and therefore, vested or accrued rights, if any, in no manner are affected. It will apply after getting the ongoing projects and future projects registered under Section 3 to prospectively follow the mandate of the Act .

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M/S. NEWTECH PROMOTERS AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UP AND OTHER ETC — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit,…

(CrPC) – S 482 – (IPC) – S 385 – Extortion – When a specific role was attributed to the accused, the High Court could not have quashed the FIR under Section 482 of the CrPC – cannot place reliance on a “draft charge-sheet” which is yet to be placed before the Magistrate to quash the criminal proceedings under Section 482.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH  JITUL JENTILAL KOTECHA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS ETC — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and B.V. Nagarathna,…

(IPC) – S 307 read with S 34 – Attempt to murder – Appeal against conviction and sentence – When the deadly weapon – dagger has been used, there was a stab injury on the stomach and near the chest which can be said to be on the vital part of the body and the nature of injuries caused, it is rightly held that the appellants have committed the offence under Section 307 IPC

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SADAKAT KOTWAR AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and S. Bopanna, JJ. ) Criminal…

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 – Illegal sand mining – Section 21(5) of the MMDR Act empowers the State Government to recover the price of the illegally-mined mineral, in addition to recovery of rent, royalty or tax – Penalty recommended by the Central Empowered Committee ‘CEC’ for illegal sand mining is in addition to the penalty that can be imposed by the State Government in terms of Section 21(5) of the Act

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH BAJRI LEASE LOI HOLDERS WELFARE SOCIETY THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L.…

Chennai City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 – Section 2(4)(ii)(b) – Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1972 – Section 9 – Rent and eviction – While interpreting the expression “actual physical possession of land and building” would mean and require the tenant to be in actual physical possession – Rent and eviction – While interpreting the expression “actual physical possession of land and building” would mean and require the tenant to be in actual physical possession

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NATIONAL COMPANY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER — Appellant Vs. THE TERRITORY MANAGER, BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before :…

You missed