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.

(CrPC) – S 319 – Summoning order – Power under Section 319 CrPC is a discretionary and an extraordinary power – It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant – It is not to be exercised because the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that some other person may also be guilty of committing that offence

(2021) 2 SCALE 221 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH AJAY KUMAR @ BITTU AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Ashok…

Service Matters

Appointment – Members of the teaching faculty of the University be it Lecturer or Assistant Professor are entrusted with teaching, which is to be imparted according to academic calendar – It is in the interest of the University that all doubts regarding appointment of teachers are raised within a period of three months to have an early decision by Chancellor to give quietus to the disputes in the University.

(2021) 2 SCALE 227 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH POORAN CHAND — Appellant Vs. CHANCELLOR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and M.R.…

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 137 – Review petition – Rejection of Miscellaneous Application seeking recall of a judgment cannot be precluded from filing the present review petition – Rectification of an order emanates from the fundamental principles that justice is above all

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJENDRA KHARE — Appellant Vs. SWAATI NIRKHI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and Indu Malhotra, JJ. ) Review Petition (Crl.)…

Anticipatory bail – Appeal against – except to observe, that the impugned order, to say the least, is perverse; and also because no prejudice should be caused to accused and affect the trial against him – Judgment and order set aside – Investigating Officer is free to take accused into custody – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH G.R. ANANDA BABU — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar, B.R. Gavai and Krishna…

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Sections 357 and 357-A – Victim compensation – Petitioners contends that both the provisions which appear to have been relied upon in the impugned order i.e. Sections 357 and 357-A of the Criminal Procedure Code would apply only at the stage of conviction and not at the stage of grant of bail so far as payment of compensation to the victims are concerned – This Court would like to examine the issue

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH DHARMESH @ DHARMENDRA @ DHAMO JAGDISHBHAI @ JAGABHAI BHAGUBHAI RATADIA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT — Respondent ( Before :…

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 4 – Acquisition proceedings – Re-notification – If land already stands acquired by Government and if the same stands vested in Government there is no question of acquisition of such a land by issuing a second notification for the Government cannot acquire its own land –

1/5 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ASSAM INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD — Appellant Vs. GILLAPUKRI TEA COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS. ETC — Respondent ( Before : S. Abdul Nazeer…

You missed