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.

Insolvency Process – Reference to arbitration – Where the petition under Section 7 of IB Code is yet to be admitted and, in such proceedings, if an application under Section 8 of the Act, 1996 is filed, the Adjudicating Authority is duty bound to first decide the application under Section 7 of the IB Code

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH INDUS BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. KOTAK INDIA VENTURE (OFFSHORE) FUND (EARLIER KNOWN AS KOTAK INDIA VENTURE LIMITED) AND OTHERS — Respondent (…

Only contradictions in material particulars and not minor contradictions can be a ground to discredit the testimony of the witnesses – It is clear that the assault was intentional which resulted in the death of the deceased and all accused had a common object, as such the High Court has rightly convicted the accused for offence punishable under Section 302/149, IPC etc.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJENDRA @ RAJAPPA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ.…

Mohd. Mukhtar Ansari case – It is a well settled principle of law that the Statute must be interpreted to advance the cause of the Statute and not to defeat the same – State Government being a prosecuting agency in the Criminal Administration, is vitally interested in such administration – Petition under section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is maintainable.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH — Appellant Vs. JAIL SUPERINTENDENT (ROPAR) AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ.…

Service Matters

Appellant was not entitled to claim benefit of military service for purpose of seniority for appointment to Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch) since the benefit of Rule 4(1) of 1972 Rules was not continued in 1982 Rules. His seniority was to be governed by statutory rules applicable after the enforcement of 1982 Rules – Appeal dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH JAGMOHAN SINGH DHILLON ETC.ETC. — Appellant Vs. SATWANT SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, S. Abdul Nazeer and Hemant Gupta,…

Facebook post read in its entirety pleads for equality of non-tribals in the State of Meghalaya – There was no intention on the part of the Appellant to promote class/community hatred – As there is no attempt made by the Appellant to incite people belonging to a community to indulge in any violence, the basic ingredients of the offence under Sections 153 A and 505 (1) (c) have not been made out – Appeal allowed

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PATRICIA MUKHIM — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ. )…

Service Matters

In the present case, 440 vacancies were advertised; they were to be considered together; obviously, in respect of older vacancies which arose for previous years, the qualifications applicable for the vacancy years were applicable – None of the appellants disputed that they were ineligible in terms of the old rules, as they did not hold the requisite intermediate qualifications in the science stream – Appellants’ contention, in this regard too, consequently fails – Appeal dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUMAN DEVI AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra Bhat,…

You missed