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.

IBC – There is no residual equity based jurisdiction in the Adjudicating Authority or the Appellate Authority while dealing with the resolution plan approved by the Committee of Creditors. These authorities can not enter into the commercial wisdom underlying the approval granted by the CoC to the resolution plan.

There is no residual equity based jurisdiction in the Adjudicating Authority or the Appellate Authority while dealing with the resolution plan approved by the Committee of Creditors. These authorities can…

Res judicata, rejection of plaint – “Since an adjudication of the plea of res judicata requires consideration of the pleadings, issues and decision in the ‘previous suit’, such a plea will be beyond the scope of Order 7 Rule 11 (d), where only the statements in the plaint will have to be perused.”

“Since an adjudication of the plea of res judicata requires consideration of the pleadings, issues and decision in the ‘previous suit’, such a plea will be beyond the scope of…

Motor Accident Compensation: Pranay Sethi Judgment Doesn’t Limit Operation Of Statute Providing Greater Benefits HELD If a statutory instrument has devised a formula which affords better or greater benefit, such statutory instrument must be allowed to operate unless the statutory instrument is otherwise found to be invalid

the Insurance Company had contended that sub-rule 3(iii) of Rule 220A of Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 is contrary to the conclusions arrived at by the Constitution Bench of…

High Court had imposed a blanket ban on the operation of DJ services in Uttar Pradesh reason that noise generated by DJ is unpleasant and obnoxious level – Appeal against same – Persons may be permitted to play the music/DJ only in accordance with law and after obtaining the requisite license/permission from the concerned authorities

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SACHIN KASHYAP AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SUSHIL CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vineet Saran and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ.…

Policy decision not to grant Study Leave to doctors for a certain length of time, in apprehension of a rise in COVID-19 cases, to ensure the availability of as many doctors, as possible for duty, is neither arbitrary, nor discriminatory, nor violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DR. ROHIT KUMAR — Appellant Vs. SECRETARY OFFICE OF LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and V.…

Service Matters

Enhancement of Age of superannuation – HELD enhancement of the age of superannuation is a ‘public function’ channelised by the provisions of the statute and the service regulations, the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be used to challenge the action of NOIDA – Though NOIDA sought the approval of the State government for the enhancement with ‘immediate effect’ , it never intended or portrayed to have intended to give retrospective effect to the prospectively applicable Government order

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. B. D. SINGHAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud…

You missed