Latest Post

Haryana School Education Act, 1995, Section 22 — Civil Court Jurisdiction — Ouster of jurisdiction by statute must be express or implied — Section 22 only ousts jurisdiction where Government or its officers have power to adjudicate — Recovery of fees by a school is not a power conferred on Government/authorities — Civil court jurisdiction not ousted in matters of reasonable fee recovery. Penal Code, 1860 — Section 498A — Cruelty by husband or relatives of husband — Allegations in FIR were vague, general, and filed one year after admitted separation of the parties — No specific instances of cruelty were mentioned — Criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Quashing of FIR — Court can quash FIR if allegations, taken at face value, do not constitute any offence — Vague and general allegations of marital discord, without specific instances, do not prima facie constitute an offence under Section 498A IPC. Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 376(2), 450 — Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 4 — Sexual assault on a minor — Evidence of prosecutrix — Conviction can be based solely on the prosecutrix’s testimony if it inspires confidence — Corroboration of testimony of prosecutrix is not a requirement of law, but a guidance of prudence — Minor contractions or small discrepancies should not be a ground for throwing out the evidence of the prosecutrix. State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 — Section 29 — Liability of Financial Corporation taking possession of industrial unit for dues — Corporation acts as a trustee, liable only to the extent of funds in its hands after settling its dues, not personally liable. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 80 — Notice to Government or public officer — Mandatory requirement before instituting suit — Failure to issue notice or obtain leave renders suit not maintainable and decree a nullity, even if impleaded later. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Section 62; Section 14(1)(d) — Appeal against NCLAT order setting aside NCLT order directing return of property — NCLT had directed return of property based on CoC decision that property not required by corporate debtor — NCLAT set aside NCLT order invoking Section 14(1)(d) barring recovery of property during CIRP — Supreme Court held that Section 14(1)(d) not applicable as CoC and Resolution Professional initiated the process for returning property due to financial burden of rentals, and not a simple recovery by owner — Commercial wisdom of CoC regarding non-retention of property given primacy — NCLAT order set aside, NCLT order restored.

Measures for protection of health and welfare of the prisoners to restrict the transmission of COVID-19 – HELD Taking into consideration the possibility of outside transmission, this Court directs that the physical presence of all the undertrial prisoners before the Courts must be stopped forthwith and recourse to video conferencing must be taken for all purposes – Also, the transfer of prisoners from one prison to another for routine reasons must not be resorted except for decongestion to ensure social distancing and medical assistance to an ill prisoner

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH IN RE: CONTAGION OF COVID 19 VIRUS IN PRISONS ( Before : Sharad Arvind Bobde, C.J.I, L. Nageswara Rao and Surya Kant, JJ. )…

Application Not Necessary For Producing Secondary Evidence : SC HELD foundation of leading of secondary evidence, either in the plaint or in evidence, the secondary evidence cannot be ousted for consideration only because an application for permission to lead secondary evidence was not filed.”

Application Not Necessary For Producing Secondary Evidence : SC [Read Judgment] LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK 27 March 2020 3:38 PM In a judgment delivered on March 19, the Supreme Court has…

Coronavirus: Consider bail for all undertrials facing up to 7 years in jail to decongest prisons, Supreme Court to states HELD “…the State/Union Territory could consider the release of prisoners who have been convicted or are undertrial for offences for which prescribed punishment is up to 7 years or less”,

  Coronavirus: Consider bail for all undertrials facing up to 7 years in jail to decongest prisons, Supreme Court to states “…the State/Union Territory could consider the release of prisoners…

West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976 – Section 2(a) and 2(c) – Eviction proceedings – HELD Lease was in respect of three plots of land which did not contain any building and these plots of land do not satisfy the requirements of definition of “Government premises” within the meaning of Section 2(a) read with Section 2(c) of the Act. – Eviction proceedings initiated by the Corporation against respondent No.1 under the Act was without jurisdiction.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH WEST BENGAL SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. &ORS. — Appellant Vs. M/S. SONA PROMOTERS PVT. LTD. &ORS. — Respondent ( Before : S.…

Management of recognised Non­ Government Madrasahs (Aided and Unaided) Rules, 2002 – Rule 8 – Appointment of Administrator – Managing Committees of the Madrasahs failed to initiate the process of election for reconstitution of the Committee within the prescribed period – No reason to interfere with the orders of the single judge of the High Court

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH THE MANAGING COMMITTEE, BHERAMARI A.M. HIGH MADRASAH & ANR. — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. — Respondent ( Before…

Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 – Section 44 – Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 285 – Property tax – Liability -HELD This Court allow these appeals set aside the judgment of the High Court and held that the appellant is exempted and not liable to pay property tax under 1888 Act. However, the appellant is liable to pay services charges for the services rendered by the Corporation and it shall be open for the respondents to conduct an enquiry in accordance with provision of Section 144 of 1888

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. BRIHANMUMBAI MAHANAGAR PALIKA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan And M.R. Shah, JJ.…

Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 8 – Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Additional evidence – HELD any event subsequent to the passing of the said order cannot be a consideration for this Court to test the legality of the said order” may be generally correct but there can be exception if the above statement is treated as statement of law. In a writ petition under Article 226 subsequent events can be taken note of for varied purposes.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAM CHANDRA PRASAD SINGH — Appellant Vs. SHARAD YADAV — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan And M.R. Shah, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

You missed