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)

Culpable Homicide–Asthmatic patient kept under unhygienic conditions by Police Officers–Cause of death has been shown to be asphyxia on account of detention of the deceased in unhygienic condition despite his respiratory problems–Accused can be proceeded against under Section 304 Part II and Section 330 I.P.C. and not under Section 302 I.P.C.

Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju Criminal Appeal No. 1683 of 2008 Indu Jain v. State of M.P. {Decided on 23/10/2008} For the…

Confession–Recovery of foreign exchange–Confession by accused later retracted–Burden to prove that confession was voluntary would be on Department. Burden of proof–Parliament did not make any provision placing the burden of proof on the accused/proceedee—The Act does not provide for a ‘reverse burden’–No presumption of commission of an offence is raised under the Act.

Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph Civil Appeal No. 7407 Of 2008 Vinod Solanki v. Union of India {Decided on 18/11/2008} Important Point…

Property Tax–Sub-lessee whether liable to pay property tax–Deed placed number of restrictions on the sub-lessee which prevented the sub lessee from full enjoyment of the leasehold rights–As the deed did not operate as a conveyance and the industrial plot was let out to sub-lessee the primary liability to pay property tax cannot be fastened on sub-lessee.

Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia The Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Sudershan Reddy Civil Appeal Nos.6802-6806 Of 2003 Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Shashnak Steel Industries (P) Ltd {Decided…

You missed