Latest Post

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Claim Petition for death of bachelor — Selection of Multiplier — Multiplier to be determined based on age of deceased and not age of dependents/parents — Deceased was 33 years old at the time of accident — Correct multiplier applicable according to standardized matrix in Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi is 16 — Argument of insurer that multiplier should correspond to age of parents rejected — MACT and High Court rightly applied multiplier of 16. 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.
Service Matters

Candidates who have ranked lower in the 2019 selection and were unable to obtain appointments cannot appropriate the vacancies of a subsequent year to themselves – To allow such a claim would be an egregious legal and constitutional error – Judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH HIGH COURT OF KERALA — Appellant Vs. RESHMA A. AND OTHERS ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Indira Banerjee,…

Apartment Buyer’s Agreement – Unfair trade practice – Incorporation of such one-sided and unreasonable clauses in the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement constitutes an unfair trade practice under Section 2(1) (r) of the C P A. HELD intent is clear that a choice or discretion is given to the allottee whether he wishes to initiate appropriate proceedings under the CP Act or file an application under the RERA Act.

1/37 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH IREO GRACE REALTECH PVT. LTD — Appellant Vs. ABHISHEK KHANNA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra…

Non-payment of stamp duty on commercial contract – Since the arbitration agreement is an independent agreement between the parties, and is not chargeable to payment of stamp duty, the non-payment of stamp duty on the commercial contract, would not invalidate the arbitration clause

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M/S. N.N. GLOBAL MERCANTILE PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. M/S. INDO UNIQUE FLAME LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y.…

Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 – Reservation in promotion – Physical disability – Petitioner contends that the respondent was given employment on compassionate ground and the entry point was not of a person with disability

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH THE STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. LEESAMMA JOSEPH — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy,…

Misappropriation of public funds – Bank Employee – In banking business absolute devotion, integrity and honesty is a sine qua non for every bank employee. High Court has committed an apparent error in setting aside the order of dismissal of the respondent confirmed in departmental appeal by order – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (APPELLATE AUTHORITY) AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta and…

Whether the acceptance of a conditional offer with a further condition results in a concluded contract, irrespective of whether the offerer accepts the further condition proposed by the acceptor, Held, Acceptance of a conditional offer with a further condition does not result in a concluded Contract.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. PADIA TIMBER COMPANY(P) LIMITED — Appellant Vs. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF VISAKHAPATNAM PORT TRUST THROUGH ITS SECRETARY — Respondent ( Before :…

You missed