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)

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 147, 148, 149, 300, 304, 304 Part I, 323, 307, 326 and 302 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 377(3) – Murder – Restoration of conviction – As the death of deceased was caused by the act of accused No. 5 giving one fatal blow on the head, which was with the intention of causing his death or causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the case would be covered by Section 304 Part I, IPC. This Court disapprove that approach of the High Court – Appeal allowed.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF RAJASTHAN — Appellant Vs. MEHRAM AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Service Matters

Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 142 and 226 – Service Law – Recruitment – BSSC is directed to evaluate and publish the results afresh, in the light of the recommendations and report of the experts (constituted by this court) subject to care being taken by the BSSC and the Govt. of Bihar, not to disturb appointments made previously pursuant to the directions of the single judge

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. ARUN KUMAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Rohinton Fali Nariman and S.…

Accused Can Challenge Conviction In Appeal Filed By The State Even If He Did Not Prefer A Formal Appeal: SC HELD The accused No. 5 (Mehram S/o Chhagna Ram) is justified in contending that it is open to the said accused to challenge the finding and order of conviction under Section 326/148, IPC recorded against him in the appeal filed by the State, assailing the impugned judgment of the High Court.

Accused Can Challenge Conviction In Appeal Filed By The State Even If He Did Not Prefer A Formal Appeal: SC [Read Judgment] LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK 7 May 2020 11:09 AM…

Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC: Bar To File Separate Suit Challenging Compromise Decree Applies To Stranger Also: SC HELD Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC: Bar To File Separate Suit Challenging Compromise Decree Applies To Stranger Also: SC HELD Rule 3A of Order 23 CPC put a specific bar that no suit shall lie to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise on which the decree is based was not lawful. D/ MAY 06, 2020

Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC: Bar To File Separate Suit Challenging Compromise Decree Applies To Stranger Also: SC [Read Judgment] Ashok Kini 6 May 2020 5:54 PM The Supreme Court…

Sentence Order :: “Three Contemnors have no iota of Remorse & want to virtually hold Judiciary to Ransom”: SC sentences 3 lawyers to 3 Months Simple Imprisonment. Held “Keeping in view the COVID-19 pandemic and the lockdown conditions we direct that this sentence shall come into force after 16 weeks from today when the contemnors should surrender before the Secretary General of this Court to undergo the imprisonment.Otherwise, warrants for their arrest shall be issued,”

“Three Contemnors have no iota of Remorse & want to virtually hold Judiciary to Ransom”: SC sentences 3 lawyers to 3 Months Imprisonment The Court has sentenced Vijay Kurle, Rashid…

Constitution Bench : SARFEASI Act Applicable To Cooperative Banks : SC  HELD “The co­operative banks under the State legislation and multi­ State co­operative banks are ‘banks’ under section 2(1)(c) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002”, 2003 notification issued under the Banking Regulation Act 1949 by which co­operative bank was brought within the class of banks entitled to seek recourse to the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, VALID. Decided/May 05, 2020

SARFEASI Act Applicable To Cooperative Banks : SC  LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK 5 May 2020 3:58 PM The Supreme Court has held that the Secularization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement…

Central Excise Act, 1944 – Sections 17 and 38A – Central Excise Rules, 1944 – Rule 25 – First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 – Chapters 57 and 87 – Tariff entry – Whether “car matting” would come within Chapter 57 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 under the heading “Carpets and Other Textile Floor Coverings” or they would be classified under Chapter 87 thereof, which relates to “Vehicles other than Railway or Tramway Rolling-Stock and Parts and Accessories Thereof” Held:- Subject-goods come under the chapter-heading 570390.90, There is no necessity to import the “common parlance” test or any other similar device of construction for identifying the position of these goods against the relevant tariff entries – Appeal dismissed

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-III — Appellant Vs. M/S. UNI PRODUCTS INDIA LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose,…

Tax Authorities Can’t Give Their Own Interpretations To Legislative Provisions On Perception Of Trade Practices : SC HELD There is no concept of ‘constructive delivery’ of goods under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and inter-state movement of goods will terminate only when physical delivery is taken.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER — Appellant Vs. M/S. BOMBAY MACHINERY STORE — Respondent ( Before : Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose, JJ. ) Civil…

You missed