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)

SC Allows Woman With Twin Pregnancy To Medically Terminate One Foetus With Down Syndrome HELD Medical board found the foetus suffered from incurable “chromosomal abnormality” and the same is classified in the list of “substantial and serious abnormalities” and no termination of abnormal foetus carries negligible risks to the mother “and is proven extremely safe and large seriies with no maternal deaths”

SC Allows Woman With Twin Pregnancy To Medically Terminate One Foetus With Down Syndrome [Read Order] LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK 17 Jun 2020 9:15 AM The Supreme Court on Tuesday permitted…

Accident – Rash and negligent driving – Compensation – Enhancement of – Orthopedic Surgeon, deposed that the appellant had suffered nine injuries, of which seven were grievous in nature and she had to undergo two surgeries which left her disabled from doing house work .Whole body disability assessed at 32%. HELD Appeal allowed. High Court for inexplicable reasons opined that it would be reasonable to determine the whole body disability at 20%

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SAVITHA — Appellant Vs. M/S. CHODAMANDALAM M.S. GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R.F. Nariman, Navin Sinha and…

Service Matters

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 32 and 142 – Appointment – Post of Police Sub-Inspector – Selection and appointment of the 133 candidates are passed in the peculiar background of the litigation starting from the advertisement in the year 2004 and several rounds of litigations during the past fourteen years, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and the same shall not be treated as a precedent.

Docid # IndLawLib/1467956 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH NIRBHAY KUMAR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, M.R. Shah…

HELD Invocation of the jurisdiction under Article 32 is not a bona fide recourse to the jurisdiction in a public interest litigation. Consequently, besides dismissing the petition an order directing the imposition of exemplary costs is necessary – This Court accordingly dismiss the petition and impose costs quantified at Rs 5,00,000 on the petitioner.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH UMEDSINH P CHAVDA — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : D.Y. Chandrachud, Hemant Gupta and Ajay Rastogi,…

HELD High Court has committed error in granting only 15% towards future prospects instead of 30% – As per the judgments of this Court primarily the age group is to be considered – Considering the age group as 40 to 50 years, when the multiplier of 13 is maintained by the High Court, there is no reason or justification for reducing the compensation by granting 15% towards future prospects – Appeal allowed.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M.H. UMA MAHESHWARI AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, R.…

SC Gives Option To Establishments And Workers To Negotiate On Full Payment Of Wages, Regardless Of MHA Order HELD “No industry can survive without the workers. Thus employers and employee need to negotiate and settle among themselves. If they are not able to settle it among themselves, they need to approach the concerned labour authorities to sort the issues out”

SC Gives Option To Establishments And Workers To Negotiate On Full Payment Of Wages, Regardless Of MHA Order [Read Order] LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK 12 Jun 2020 10:58 AM The Supreme…

Amrapali : SC Asks Banks To Release Balance Funds To Homebuyers, Despite Accounts Being Declared NPAs HELD “We direct the banks and financial institutions to release loans to home buyers, whose loans have been sanctioned, notwithstanding the fact that their accounts are declared as NPAs. Let there be restructuring of the loan amount”.

Amrapali : SC Asks Banks To Release Balance Funds To Homebuyers, Despite Accounts Being Declared NPAs [Read Order] LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK 10 Jun 2020 9:42 PM In a relief to…

Motor Accident – Rash and Negligent driving – Physical functional disability – Enhancement of compensation -Motor Accident – Rash and Negligent driving – Physical functional disability – Enhancement of compensation – HELD appellant is therefore held entitled to compensation for loss of future earning based on his 75% permanent physical functional disability recalculated with the salary of Rs.5,500/­with multiplier of 14 at Rs. 6,93,000/­.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SRI ANTHONY ALIAS ANTHONY SWAMY — Appellant Vs. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C. — Respondent ( Before : R.F. Nariman, Navin Sinha and B.R.…

Housing – Recovery of amount of interest – Noida and Greater Noida Authorities HELD A prayer made the authorities be given liberty to recover amount of interest from the builder at the contractually agreed rate under the lease deed – It was lastly and rightly pointed out that the Court can fix a reasonable rate of interest – Considering the present scenario, This Court feel that the aforesaid submission is justified

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BIKRAM CHATTERJI AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Arun Mishra and Uday Umesh Lalit,…

You missed