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.
Service Matters

Service Law – Higher Pay Scale – Grant of benefits of higher pay scale to the Central/State Government employees stand on different footing than grant of pay scale by an instrumentality of the State – Employees of Punjab State Co-operative Milk Producers Federation are entitled to pay scale equivalent to their counterparts in State of Punjab

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PUNJAB STATE CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS FEDERATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. BALBIR KUMAR WALIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan…

HELD – Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act, 1908. – Principle is based on the fact that family settlement only declares the rights which are already possessed by the parties – A compromise decree in respect of land which is not the subject-matter of suit but is part of the settlement between the family members does not requires compulsory registration in terms of

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RIPUDAMAN SINGH — Appellant Vs. TIKKA MAHESHWAR CHAND — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hemant Gupta, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

Representatives of Facebook has to appear before the Delhi Assembly panel – Any representative of Facebook who would appear before the Committee would be well within their right to refuse to answer the query and such an approach cannot be taken amiss with possibility of inviting privilege proceedingsHELD The power to compel attendance by initiating privilege proceedings is an essential power

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH AJIT MOHAN AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul,…

In view of the Notification dated 19th March 2021 – Writ petitions are allowed. HELD Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) has granted approval to both colleges with an intake capacity of 60 students each – State Government vide Notification dated 19.3.2021 has granted conditional affiliation after considering the recommendations made by the Affiliation Committee

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SRI SAI RR INSTITUTE OF PHARMACY — Appellant Vs. DR. A.P.J. ABDUL KALAM TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : R.F. Nariman,…

(CPC) – Order 23 Rule 3A – Bar to suit – A party to a consent decree based on a compromise to challenge the compromise decree on the ground that the decree was not lawful, i.e., it was void or voidable has to approach the same court, which recorded the compromise and a separate suit challenging the consent decree has been held to be not maintainable.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH R. JANAKIAMMAL AND S.R. SOMASUNDARAM AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. S.K. KUMARASAMY(DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan…

You missed