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)
Service Matters

Appointment – Members of the teaching faculty of the University be it Lecturer or Assistant Professor are entrusted with teaching, which is to be imparted according to academic calendar – It is in the interest of the University that all doubts regarding appointment of teachers are raised within a period of three months to have an early decision by Chancellor to give quietus to the disputes in the University.

(2021) 2 SCALE 227 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH POORAN CHAND — Appellant Vs. CHANCELLOR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and M.R.…

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 137 – Review petition – Rejection of Miscellaneous Application seeking recall of a judgment cannot be precluded from filing the present review petition – Rectification of an order emanates from the fundamental principles that justice is above all

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJENDRA KHARE — Appellant Vs. SWAATI NIRKHI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and Indu Malhotra, JJ. ) Review Petition (Crl.)…

Anticipatory bail – Appeal against – except to observe, that the impugned order, to say the least, is perverse; and also because no prejudice should be caused to accused and affect the trial against him – Judgment and order set aside – Investigating Officer is free to take accused into custody – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH G.R. ANANDA BABU — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar, B.R. Gavai and Krishna…

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Sections 357 and 357-A – Victim compensation – Petitioners contends that both the provisions which appear to have been relied upon in the impugned order i.e. Sections 357 and 357-A of the Criminal Procedure Code would apply only at the stage of conviction and not at the stage of grant of bail so far as payment of compensation to the victims are concerned – This Court would like to examine the issue

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH DHARMESH @ DHARMENDRA @ DHAMO JAGDISHBHAI @ JAGABHAI BHAGUBHAI RATADIA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT — Respondent ( Before :…

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 4 – Acquisition proceedings – Re-notification – If land already stands acquired by Government and if the same stands vested in Government there is no question of acquisition of such a land by issuing a second notification for the Government cannot acquire its own land –

1/5 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ASSAM INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD — Appellant Vs. GILLAPUKRI TEA COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS. ETC — Respondent ( Before : S. Abdul Nazeer…

CBI case – Considering the facts and circumstances of the case including the extent of imprisonment undergone, the condition of health of the appellant and the need for the early disposal of the appeal, an order which balances the liberty of the appellant and the interest of the administration of criminal justice, should be passed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SWETABH SUMAN — Appellant Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Indira Banerjee and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ.…

You missed