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)

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 – There are no pleadings by the public servants with regard to the prejudice caused to them on account of non-obtaining of prior consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act qua them specifically in addition to the general consent in force, nor with regard to miscarriage of justice – No reason to interfere with the finding

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S FERTICO MARKETING AND INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS ETC. — Appellant Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ANOTHER ETC. — Respondent ( Before…

(CPC) – Section 100 – HELD Formulation of substantial question of law or reformulation of the same in terms of the proviso arises only if there are some questions of law and not in the absence of any substantial question of law – High Court is not obliged to frame substantial question of law

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH KIRPA RAM (DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SURENDRA DEO GAUR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao,…

Misbranded drugs – Feeble attempt to show compliance with Drugs Act by alleged purchase of the samples under Form 14A to the counter affidavit from an unknown source and date must be rejected outright as an attempt to create evidence where none exists – High Court therefore erred in dismissing the writ petition on grounds of delay – Appeal allowed

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH VETINDIA PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : R.F. Nariman, Navin Sinha and Krishna Murari,…

Food Adulteration – Complaint filed against Directors of the Company – Held Therefore, in the absence of the Company, the Nominated Person cannot be convicted or vice versa -to convict the Company renders the entire conviction of the Nominated Person as unsustainable – Complaint dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta and Ajay Rastogi,…

You missed