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)

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Section 16(1A) and Section 16(1)(a)(ii) – Adulterated Haldi Powder HELD the report of the public analyst does not mention that the sample was either “insect infested” or was “unfit for human consumption”, in the absence of such an opinion, the prosecution has failed to establish the requirements of Section 2 (1a)(f) of the Act

  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2255 OF 2010 PREM CHAND …APPELLANT Versus STATE OF HARYANA …RESPONDENT JUDGMENT N. V. RAMANA, J. 1.…

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 194C – Tax Deduction at Source – Applicability of Section 194C – Question of TDS under Section 194C(2) would have arisen only if the payment was made to a “sub-contractor” and that too, in pursuance of a contract for the purpose of “carrying whole or any part of work undertaken by the contractor” Appeal dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHREE CHOUDHARY TRANSPORT COMPANY — Appellant Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Service Matters

Service Law – Appointment – Post of Medical Officer (Homeo) – 1% reservation was provided to the Hindu Nadar Community – Circular of the Commission could not adversely affect the claim of the appellants – Commission was bound to fill up the shortfall in the vacancies reserved for the Hindu Nadar Community.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH DR. ASWATHY R.S. KARTHIKA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. DR. ARCHANA M. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta…

Service Matters

Army Act, 1950 – Section 71 and 71(h) – General Court Martial – Cashiering from service – Pensionary benefits – If the penalty imposed by the Court Martial of cashiering from service is upheld, forfeiture of all the pensionary benefits of the Appellant is not automatic – In the absence of an order passed under Section 71 (h), the pension of the Appellant cannot be forfeited

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. LT. COL. S. S. BEDI — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta…

IPC, 1860 – Sections 366A and 506 – CrPC , 1973 – S. 313 – Illicit intercourse HELD Important links of the story, including what happened in the crucial five minutes when the girl was locked inside the room or how the male tenant reacted, are missing – Similarly, other links of the story are grossly inconsistent – once a plausible version put forth in defence U/Section 313 CrPC stage, it is for the prosecution to negate such defense plea – Appeal allowed. DOD 28/7/2020

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH PARMINDER KAUR @ P.P. KAUR @ SONI — Appellant Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, Surya Kant and…

Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 – Sections 8(3), 8(4) and 68 – Imposition of penalty – Plea of the appellant that he was part-time, non-executive Director not in charge of the conduct of business of the Company at the relevant time was erroneously discarded by the authorities and the High Court HELD present is a case where the liability has been fastened on the appellant without there being necessary basis for any such conclusion.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHAILENDRA SWARUP — Appellant Vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ. )…

Adverse Possession – The Special Courts and Tribunals, indisputably are entitled to determine any question or issue including the question of title or possession in the proceedings initiated before it–Special Courts and the Tribunal not only have trappings of a court but also of a civil court and, thus, are entitled to determine complicated questions of title

2009(2) LAW HERALD (SC) 1045 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.M.…

You missed