Latest Post

Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 — Section 8(3) — Unauthorized alienation of minor’s property — Such alienation is voidable, not void ab initio, and can be challenged by the minor upon attaining majority or by someone claiming under the minor. Criminal Procedure — Delay in Investigation and Filing of Charge Sheet — Speedy Trial — Right to Speedy Trial and Timely Completion of Investigation are integral parts of Article 21 of the Constitution — Statutory recognition in CrPC for prompt investigation — Investigations should be completed within a reasonable time, not endlessly — Lack of strict timelines in CrPC does not permit indefinite investigations — Inordinate delay without adequate justification warrants intervention by Courts. Contract Law — Statutory Amendment — Impact on existing contracts — Where a statutory amendment alters a fundamental aspect like royalty rates, a pre-existing contract cannot prevent the application of the amended law, especially when the payment of royalty is linked to the removal or consumption of minerals — [MMDR Act] Applicability of S.9 — Scope — Section 9 applies broadly to all entities engaged in removal/dispatch of minerals, not only direct mining lessees. Criminal Procedure — Passport — Return/Surrender of Passport — Accused facing serious criminal charges — Right to travel abroad vis-à-vis right to speedy trial — Balance between individual liberty and societal interest — Accused charged with abetment of suicide and criminal conspiracy since 2014, trial still at stage of committal despite lapse of over ten years — Accused, a US citizen, had misused interim protection in prior proceedings to leave the country without Court’s leave — Whether High Court justified in permitting accused to travel abroad on grounds of medical treatment — Held, not justified — High Court indulgent rather than judicially restrained — Medical facilities in India comparable to those abroad — High Court’s revisional order set aside — Accused restrained from travelling abroad without express permission of Sessions Court — Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, S. 442 — Constitution of India, Art. 21 Service Law — Promotion — Entitlement to promotion to Chief Medical Director (Higher Administrative Grade) in Indian Railway Medical Service — Appellant was denied promotion despite being eligible, with a junior officer being promoted instead — Appellant’s case was rejected by the Tribunal and High Court based on her grading in Annual Confidential Reports

India cannot have two parallel legal systems, “one for the rich and the resourceful and those who wield political power and influence and the other for the small men without resources and capabilities to obtain justice or fight injustice.” The existence of a dual legal system will only chip away the legitimacy of the law. – Order of High Court shall stand set aside – Bail cancelled

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SOMESH CHAURASIA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF M.P. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. )…

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(d) – Subsequent Purchaser of Flat – Relief of interest on refund HELD The equities, in the opinion of this court, can properly be moulded by directing refund of the principal amounts, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date the builder acquired knowledge of the transfer, or acknowledged it.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M/S LAUREATE BUILDWELL PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. CHARANJEET SINGH — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, Hemant Gupta and S. Ravindra Bhat,…

AGR dues – In prior order while disposing of the Case, this Court reiterated that no telecom operator shall raise any dispute in respect of the demand raised by the Department of Telecommunications pertaining to AGR dues – There is no scope for any recalculation/re-computation of AGR dues – Applications dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH UNION OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. ASSOCIATION OF UNIFIED TELECOM SERVICE PROVIDERS OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao,…

Unlawful assembly “to snatch the voters list and to cast bogus voting” – Essence of the electoral system should be to ensure freedom of voters to exercise their free choice – Any attempt of booth capturing and/or bogus voting should be dealt with iron hands because it ultimately affects the rule of law and democracy – Nobody can be permitted to dilute the right to free and fair election – Appeal dismissed

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LAKSHMAN SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF BIHAR (NOW JHARKHAND) — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M.R. Shah, JJ. )…

S E B I Act, 1992 – Ss 24(1) & 24A – Compounding of offence – SEBI’s consent cannot be mandatory before SAT or the Court before which the proceeding is pending, for exercising the power of compounding under Section 24A- offences which lie outside the IPC, compounding may be permitted only if the statute which creates the offence contains an express provision for compounding before such an offence can be made compoundable – Power of compounding must, in other words, be expressly conferred by the statute which creates the offence.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRAKASH GUPTA — Appellant Vs. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and M R Shah,…

(CrPC) – Section 197 – Protection of Sanction – HELD to find out whether the alleged offence is committed “while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty” , the yardstick to be followed is to form a prima facie view whether the act of omission for which the accused was charged had a reasonable connection with the discharge of his duties.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH INDRA DEVI — Appellant Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hemant Gupta, JJ. ) Criminal…

Fraud and misappropriation of funds – Power under Section 156(3) can be exercised by the Magistrate even before he takes cognizance provided the complaint discloses the commission of cognizable offence – he is not to examine the complainant on oath because he was not taking cognizance of any offence therein

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S SUPREME BHIWANDI WADA MANOR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya…

You missed