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)

Admission in Medical Courses – Benefit of ‘First Priority’ Policy – Candidates whose parents were domiciles of the UT of Dadra and Nagar Haveli or Daman and Diu and had studied the same place(s) mentioned above for at least the classes of 8th to 12th standards, their children are eligibile for the same

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MUSKAN SAMIR MODASIA — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and Hemant Gupta, JJ. ) Petition(s)…

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 – HELD – this is a case where the inferences drawn are a non-sequitur to the plain and simple words of the e-mails/communications read in evidence, which were before the Tribunal and which do not support the inferences drawn. In this view of the matter, clearly the approach of the majority of arbitrators is arbitrary and capricious; and therefore cannot pass judicial muster. (See : Associate Builders v. DDA, (2015) 3 SCC 49)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANGLO AMERICAN METALLURGICAL COAL PTY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. MMTC LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Rohinton Fali Nariman and K.M. Joseph, JJ. )…

FARMERS AGITATION : We clarify that this Court will not interfere with the protest in question. Indeed the right to protest is part of a fundamental right and can as a matter of fact, be exercised subject to public order. There can certainly be no impediment in the exercise of such rights as long as   it is non-violent and does not result in damage to the life and properties of other citizens and is in accordance with law. We are of the view at this stage that the farmers’ protest should be allowed to continue without impediment

1 ITEM NO.28 TO 32 Court 1 (Video Conferencing) SECTION X/PIL-W S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A…

Dowry death – Cancellation of Anticipatory Bail of in-laws of the deceased- Grant of anticipatory bail in such a serious offence would operate to obstruct the investigation – It is a well settled principle of law that the setting aside of an “unjustified, illegal or perverse order” granting bail is distinct from the cancellation of bail – Investigation transferred to CBI

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH DR. NARESH KUMAR MANGLA — Appellant Vs. SMT. ANITA AGARWAL AND OTHERS ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra…

Service Matters

CAS promotion, the incumbent teacher must have holding a substantive sanctioned post, as much as CAS promotion being a personal promotion to the incumbent teacher – promotion under the scheme, is to be given benefit only from the entry of service of such incumbent into the University – Action of university upheld writ dismissed

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH REGISTRAR, KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. DR. PRABHUGOUDA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and M.R.…

Competition Act, 2002 – Section 3 – Anti-competitive agreements – Ola and Uber do not facilitate cartelization or anti-competitive practices between drivers, who are independent individuals, who act independently of each other, so as to attract the application of section 3 of the Act, as has been held by both the CCI and the NCLAT.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SAMIR AGRAWAL — Appellant Vs. COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Rohinton Fali Nariman, K.M. Joseph and Krishna Murari,…

You missed