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.

High Court shall not pass order of not to arrest and/or “no coercive steps” either during the investigation or till the investigation is completed and/or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M/S NEEHARIKA INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, M.R. Shah…

Demand of bribe – At the stage of framing of the charge and/or considering the discharge application, the mini trial is not permissible – At this stage, it is to be noted that even as per Section 7 of the PC Act, even an attempt constitutes an offence – Therefore, the High Court has erred and/or exceeded in virtually holding a mini trial at the stage of discharge application

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF RAJASTHAN — Appellant Vs. ASHOK KUMAR KASHYAP — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M.R. Shah, JJ. ) Criminal…

IBC, 2016 – Once a resolution plan is duly approved by the Adjudicating Authority under sub-section (1) of Section 31, the claims as provided in the resolution plan shall stand frozen and will be binding on the Corporate Debtor and its employees, members, creditors, including the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority, guarantors and other stakeholders

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH GHANASHYAM MISHRA AND SONS PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH THE AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY — Appellant Vs. EDELWEISS ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED THROUGH THE DIRECTOR AND OTHERS —…

Drunken driving – Breath analyzer test or blood test is not mandatory for an insurer to deny an accident policy claim on the ground of drunken driving – Presence of alcohol in excess of 30 mg per 100 ml. of blood is not an indispensable requirement to enable an Insurer to successfully invoke the clause – What is required to be proved is driving by a person under the influence of the alcohol –

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. PEARL BEVERAGES LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, Indira Banerjee and K.M.…

Conspiracy to Destabilize Judiciary – Phone call conspiracy against the High Court Chief Justice and a senior sitting Judge of the Supreme Court – Investigation- Authenticity and genuineness of the transcript having been admitted to the extent as contained in audio tape – Direction by the High Court calling for report from Justice R.V. Raveendran need not be allowed to continue – Order accordingly.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH (RETD.) — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ.…

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI) – Section 138 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 258 – Cheque Bouncing Cases – Power to Stop Proceedings – Section 258 of the Code is not applicable to complaints under Section 138 of the Act. B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI) – Section 138 – Dishonour of cheque – Expeditious Trial – Directions

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CONSTITUTION BENCH IN RE: EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I. ACT 1881. ( Before : S.A. Bobde, CJI, Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai, A.S.…

A suit for specific performance cannot be dismissed on the sole ground of delay or laches – Escalation of prices cannot be the sole ground to deny specific performance -However, an exception to this rule is where an immovable property is to be sold within a certain period, time being of the essence, and it is not found that owing to some default on the part of the plaintiff, the sale could not take place within the stipulated time.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH A.R. MADANA GOPAL ETC.ETC. — Appellant Vs. M/S RAMNATH PUBLICATIONS PVT. LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and S.…

You missed