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)
Service Matters

Service Law – Appointment – Contractual employees – Post of Computer Operator – No regular sanctioned post – High Court has committed a grave error in passing such an interim order restraining the appellant Corporation from appointing new set of contractual employees in place of original writ petitioners

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LIMITED — Appellant Vs. PIYUSH KANT SHARMA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, R.…

Cr P C, 1973 – Section 167(2) – Default bail – Right of – No other condition of deposit – Where the investigation is not completed within 60 days or 90 days, as the case may be, and no chargesheet is filed by 60th or 90th day, accused gets an “indefeasible right” to default bail

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SARAVANAN — Appellant Vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and M.R. Shah,…

Shared household means where person aggrieved has lived at any time in domestic relationship either singly or with respondent – The household may be a joint family or jointly tenanted irrespective of title or ownership of property. “Right to reside in shared household” – The aggrieved has right to reside in shared household property continues until she proves that she is a victim of domestic violence,

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SATISH CHANDER AHUJA — Appellant Vs. SNEHA AHUJA — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and M.R. Shah, JJ. ) Civil…

POSCO – -Victim aged 15 years at the time of deposition is matured – Even there can be a conviction based on the sole testimony of the victim, however, she must be found to be reliable and trustworthy – Sole testimony of the victim is absolutely trustworthy and unblemished and her evidence is of sterling quality

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH GANESAN — Appellant Vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY ITS INSPECTOR OF POLICE — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and M.R. Shah,…

Service Matters

HELD Post of District Judge (Entry Level) – a criminal case against the appellant under Section 498A/406/34 IPC was pending which was registered on a complaint filed by the wife of the appellant – Such decision of the Committee was well within the jurisdiction and power of the Committee and cannot be said to be unsustainable – Mere fact that subsequently after more than a year when the person whose candidature has been cancelled has been acquitted cannot be a ground to turn the clock backward.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANIL BHARDWAJ — Appellant Vs. THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and M.R. Shah,…

Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5- Condonation of Delay – in any event the petitioner herein cannot claim benefit of an interim order from the date of disposal of the Writ Appeal – In such event, though this Court has condoned the delay, the grant of an order of statusquo at that juncture was without reference to all these aspects.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH HANUMAPPA (SINCE DECEASED) BY HIS LRS. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. A.…

Minerals (Other than Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016-Lessees are granted time up to end of January, 2021 for the removal of the minerals excavated/mined on or before 15.03.2018 subject to payment of royalties and other charges. HELD If within the time stipulated above, the lessees could not remove the mineral, the Government shall invoke the power under Rule 12(1)(hh) – Application disposed of.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH CHOWGULE AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. GOA FOUNDATION AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. A. Bobde, CJI., A. S. Bopanna…

You missed