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)

(CrPC) – Ss 372 and 377 – (IPC) – Ss 364A and 34 – Kidnapping for ransom – Enhancement of sentence -It is fairly well settled that the remedy of appeal is creature of the Statute. – State Government to prefer appeal for inadequate sentence under Section 377, Cr.PC but similarly no appeal can be maintained by victim under Section 372, Cr.PC on the ground of inadequate sentence.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PARVINDER KANSAL — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and R. Subhash…

(CrPC) – S 357(3) – Release of compensation – Police officers have illegally detained complainant’s son in connection with a theft case and he was tortured in the police lock up and succumbed to the injuries – Appellant herein who is the father of the victim is relentlessly pursuing the matter from last more than a decade -Instead of ordering release of compensation to the appellant at this stage – It appropriate to request the High Court for expeditious disposal of the Case – Appeal dismissed.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DALBIR SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and R. Subhash…

IMP : Disaster Management Act, 2005 – Section 71 and 72 – Jurisdiction – Students cannot be promoted without exams – State Governments or State Disaster Management Authority in exercise of power under Disaster Management Act, 2005 has no jurisdiction to take a decision that the students of final year/terminal students should be promoted on the basis of earlier year assessment and internal assessment

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH PRANEETH K AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION (UGC) AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy…

Non-Supply of fuel to vehicles without PUC Certificate – Appeal against – Tribunal had no power and/or authority and/or jurisdiction to pass orders directing the Appellant State Government to issue orders, instructions or directions on dealers, outlets and petrol pumps not to supply fuel to vehicles without PUC Certificate – Appeal allowed.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Appellant Vs. CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Arun Mishra…

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 7 – A personal Loan to a Promoter or a Director of a company cannot trigger the Corporate Resolution Process under the IBC. Disputes as to whether the signatures of the Respondents are forged or whether records have been fabricated can be adjudicated upon evidence including forensic evidence in a regular suit and not in proceedings under Section 7 of the IBC.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S RADHA EXPORTS (INDIA) PVT. LIMITED. — Appellant Vs. K.P. JAYARAM AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Arun Mishra and Indira Banerjee,…

Decree of possession – A decree of possession does not automatically follow a decree of declaration of title and ownership over property – It is well settled that, where a Plaintiff wants to establish that the Defendant’s original possession was permissive, it is for the Plaintiff to prove this allegation and if he fails to do so, it may be presumed that possession was adverse, unless there is evidence to the contrary.

 “A decree of possession does not automatically follow a decree of declaration of title and ownership over property. “   SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NAZIR MOHAMED — Appellant…

Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006 – Section 4(5) – Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 14, 15, 16, 338, 341, 342, and 342A – Permissibility of Sub-Classification within Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes Reservation – State Government has the power to make reservation and make such sub – classification and that would not amount to tinkering with lists. Matter referred to larger bench.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CONSTITUTION BENCH THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. DAVINDER SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet…

Pleas Of Title And Adverse Possession Cannot Be Advanced Simultaneously HELD  The possession has to be in public and to the knowledge of the true owner as adverse, and this is necessary as a plea of adverse possession seeks to defeat the rights of the true owner.And From The Same Date HELD

The Supreme Court has observed that plea of title and adverse possession cannot be advanced simultaneously and from the same date.  “We fail to appreciate how, on the one hand…

You missed