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)

As per guidance note dated 11.11.2020 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Women and Child Development, all States/Union Territories who have not yet opened Anganwadi Centres shall take a decision to open Anganwadi Centres on or before 31.01.2021 situated outside the containment zone.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH DIPIKA JAGATRAM SAHANI — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and M.R. Shah,…

Illegal Gratification – Reduction in sentence – Accused is a senior citizen aged about 70 years and already dismissed from service – Sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment as imposed by the Special Court, confirmed by the High Court, is reduced to one year and one month rigorous imprisonment – Appeal partly allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH S. SUNDARA KUMAR — Appellant Vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU — Respondent ( Before…

Appellant the importer of goods & cleared them for home consumption, the natural consequence of raising of such debit notes on the end-buyers situated in different States and movement of goods to such end-buyers would be to take these transactions in the category of inter-State sales in terms of Section 3(a) of the CST Act – Appellant was not entitled to the exemption of Section 5(2) of the CST Act

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S VELLANKI FRAME WORKS — Appellant Vs. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, VISAKHAPATNAM — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ )…

Construction of the Hotel-cum-Restaurant structure in the Bus Stand Complex is illegal and constitutes a brazen violation of law – Permission which was granted by MOEF was only for construction of a ‘parking place’ at McLeod Ganj – Similarly, the permission granted for constructing a ‘bus stand’ in the same area

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH HIMACHAL PRADESH BUS STAND MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (HPBSM&DA) — Appellant Vs. THE CENTRAL EMPOWERED COMMITTEE ETC. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before :…

Deduction – Co-operative Societies – Limited object of section 80P(4) is to exclude co-operative banks that function at par with other commercial banks HELD the primary object of which is to provide financial accommodation to its members for agricultural purposes or for purposes connected with agricultural activities.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH THE MAVILAYI SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CALICUT AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : R.…

Common intention is evident from the accused persons coming to the lands of PW1 armed and intimidating him to return the lands followed by assault upon him and those who came to his rescue HELD Number and nature of hard blunt injuries on the two deceased make it apparent that the assailants were more than one

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ASHARAM TIWARI — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : R.F. Nariman and Navin Sinha, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No…….of…

Service Matters

Candidates who have ranked lower in the 2019 selection and were unable to obtain appointments cannot appropriate the vacancies of a subsequent year to themselves – To allow such a claim would be an egregious legal and constitutional error – Judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH HIGH COURT OF KERALA — Appellant Vs. RESHMA A. AND OTHERS ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Indira Banerjee,…

Apartment Buyer’s Agreement – Unfair trade practice – Incorporation of such one-sided and unreasonable clauses in the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement constitutes an unfair trade practice under Section 2(1) (r) of the C P A. HELD intent is clear that a choice or discretion is given to the allottee whether he wishes to initiate appropriate proceedings under the CP Act or file an application under the RERA Act.

1/37 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH IREO GRACE REALTECH PVT. LTD — Appellant Vs. ABHISHEK KHANNA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra…

You missed