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.

Relief has been sought is (i) cancellation of all the agreements; (ii) refund of moneys to purchasers; and in the alternative (iii) ensuring that the construction is carried out and that the premises are handed over within a reasonable period of time -Entertaining a petition of this nature will involve the Court in virtually carrying out a day to day supervision of a building project

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UPENDRA CHOUDHURY — Appellant Vs. BULANDSHAHAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M. R. Shah, JJ.…

Kerala Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 – Section 8 – Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003 -It is just and proper that even if the respondents are not compensated for the value of the land, they need to be compensated for the benefits arisen out of the lands for the period they were kept out of possession by action of the respondents, treating it to be vested land under Act, 1971

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH THE CONSERVATOR AND CUSTODIAN OF FOREST AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SOBHA JOHN KOSHY AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, R.…

Service Matters

Heart ailment – Section 2(i) of the Act takes into account visual disability, locomotor disability, mental illness, mental retardation, hearing impairment and leprosy – A heart ailment is not covered within the definition of disability in the Act – When the 1995 Act was replaced by the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016,

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH NAWAL KISHORE SHARMA — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy,…

Societies Registration Act, 1860 – Sections 10 and 24 – Held, the appellants who are otherwise eligible to be enrolled as members of the Society in their own rights need not be denied of the same – They have a right to be considered for being admitted as members of the Society by the newly elected Managing Committee.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SWATI ULHAS KERKAR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SANJAY WALAVALKAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ.…

Securities and Exchange Board of India (Mutual Funds) Regulations, 1996 – Regulations 18(15)(c) and 39(2)(a) – Winding up of mutual fund schemes – Consent of the unit holders would mean consent by majority of the unit holders who have participated in the poll, and not consent of majority of all the unit holders of the scheme.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH FRANKLIN TEMPLETON TRUSTEE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. AMRUTA GARG AND OTHERS ETC — Respondent ( Before : S. Abdul Nazeer…

Injuries were inflicted without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken advantage or acted cruelly or unusually – Appellant has served more than 18years of his jail sentence – This Court convict the appellant for an offence under Section 304 Part I IPC and sentence him to the sentence already undergone

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PARDESHIRAM — Appellant Vs. STATE OF M.P. (NOW CHHATTISGARH) — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

You missed