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)

DEFAULT BAIL – the magistrate ought to inform the accused of the availability of the indefeasible right u/S 167(2) CrPC once it accrues, without any delay.HELD Irrespective of the seriousness of the offence and the reliability of the evidence available, filing additional complaints merely to circumvent the application for default bail is an improper strategy.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH  M. RAVINDRAN — Appellant Vs. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar…

Service Matters

Service Law – Claim to re-employment – continuation in service – HELD the view in Indu Singh, 2017 SCC Online 1527 dealing with an identical statute, was correctly interpreted – Impugned judgment and orders of the High Court are set aside – Appellants consequently, to continue till the end of the following June on re-employment – Appeal allowed.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NAVIN CHANDRA DHOUNDIYAL — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and S. Ravindra Bhat,…

Tender agreement – Termination of – enquiry report prepared by the M D was conducted ex parte & the M D failed to offer opportunity of hearing before passing the order impugned which terminated agreement for no justifiable reason to hold that the respondent was at fault . Bias therefore, cannot be ruled out, terminating the agreement cannot be sustained in law.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH STATE OF U.P. — Appellant Vs. SUDHIR KUMAR SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R.F. Nariman, Navin Sinha and K.M. Joseph,…

IMP : Cancellation of the award of tender in favour of the applicant, the audi alteram partem rule were breached in its entirety.  HELD  writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable at the instance of an aggrieved party to enforce a contractual obligation of the State or its instrumentality when the State acts in an arbitrary manner.

Cancellation of the award of tender in favour of the applicant, the audi alteram partem rule were breached in its entirety.  HELD  writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution…

You missed