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.

Murder – Post-Mortem Report – No marks on the body which would suggest violence or struggle – In any case, the medical expert himself has not ruled out the possibility of suicidal death – Post-Mortem Report shows, that the cause of death was ‘asphyxia due to hanging’ – Appellant acquitted.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHIVAJI CHINTAPPA PATIL — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA — Respondent ( Before : R.F. Nariman and B. R. Gavai, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

I B C, 2016 – S 14 – For the period of moratorium, since no Section 138/141 (NIA) proceeding can continue or be initiated against the corporate debtor because of a statutory bar, such proceedings can be initiated or continued against the persons mentioned in Section 141(1) and (2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH P. MOHANRAJ AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M/S. SHAH BROTHERS ISPAT PRIVATE LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Rohinton Fali Nariman, Navin Sinha and…

It is settled law that a secured creditor stands outside the winding up and can realise its security dehors winding up proceedings.-Winding up proceedings – A petition either under Section 7 or Section 9 of the IBC is an independent proceeding which is unaffected by winding up proceedings that may be filed qua the same company

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH A. NAVINCHANDRA STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Rohinton Fali Nariman and B.R.…

W B Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947- To then say that the urgency provision could be invoked on account of the Single Judge’s order dated 22.06.2000, is to attempt to infer from the said order, much more than it actually said – Therefore, the Division Bench rightly held that at best this order could possibly refer to the acquisition proceedings

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PUNALUR PAPER MILLS LIMITED — Appellant Vs. WEST BENGAL MINERAL DEVELOPMENT AND TRADING CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R.F. Nariman…

Necessary Ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 420 (IPC) are as follows: (i) a person must commit the offence of cheating under Section 415; and (ii) the person cheated must be dishonestly induced to (a) deliver property to any person; or (b) make, alter or destroy valuable security or anything signed or sealed and capable of being converted into valuable security.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ARCHANA RANA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M.R. Shah, JJ.…

You missed