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)
Service Matters

Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 – Section 68 – Qualification for promotion to the post of Junior Bailiff – HELD 2016 Act actually replaces the General Rules for the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services. But the Act does not override the Special Rules. Petition dismissed

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH R. PALANISAMY AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT OF MADRAS AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S.A. Bobde,…

Conditions For Transferring Cases from High Courts Under Article 139A To Apex Court: SCOI HELD “The points involved in the said Civil Appeal and the Writ Petition pending in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana require adjudication of substantially the same questions of law. These questions have arisen in two different States and in my opinion these are substantial questions of general importance.”,

The Supreme Court has withdrawn to itself a writ petition pending before the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging a notification issued by the State of Haryana providing for 10%…

Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Korea – Article 5(1) – No permanent establishment has been set up within the meaning of Article 5(1) of the DTAA, as the Mumbai Project Office cannot be said to be a fixed place of business through which the core business of the Assessee was wholly or partly carried on.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX-II (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) NEW DELHI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M/S SAMSUNG HEAVY INDUSTRIES CO. LIMITED — Respondent ( Before…

S C O I  Directs Compassionate Appointment In 21 Yrs Old Case, HELD Section 108 Evidence Act, stipulates that when the question is whether a man is alive or dead, and it is proved that he has not been heard of for seven years by those who would naturally have heard of him if he had been alive, the burden of proving that he is alive is shifted to the person who affirms it.

   Section 108 stipulates that when the question is whether a man is alive or dead, and it is proved that he has not been heard of for seven years…

Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 – Rule 4 – Fixation of fees – The interim fee fixed by the Andhra Pradesh Government without following the drill of Rule 4 has correctly been found to be prima facie illegal and has therefore correctly been suspended

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH RAJEEV GANDHI MEMORIAL COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent (…

IMP :: WILL proof when both attesting witness are dead.HELD in a case covered under Section 69 of the Evidence Act, what is to be proved as far as the attesting witness is concerned, is, that the attestation of one of the attesting witness is in his handwriting. The language of the Section is clear and unambiguous. Section 68 of the Evidence Act, as interpreted by this Court, contemplates attestation of both attesting witnesses to be proved. But that is not the requirement in Section 69 of the Evidence Act.

HELD “in a case covered under Section 69 of the Evidence Act, what is to be proved as far as the attesting witness is concerned, is, that the attestation of…

SCOI considered whether the NHAI, which owns and controls the highway, led to a duty of care to the users of the highway. HELD NHAI, which indisputably owns and controls the highway, and on whose behalf it was constructed, and for which the maintenance and operation agreement was entered into, led to a duty of care, to the users (of the highway)” The failure of the NHAI to ensure remedial action, and likewise the failure by Rathod (mining contractor) to take measures to prevent the accident, prima facie, disclose their liability. “

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH THE DIRECTOR GENERAL (ROAD DEVELOPMENT) NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. AAM AADMI LOKMANCH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before :…

You missed