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.

IMP : (Cr.PC) – S 125 – Maintenance in all cases will be awarded from the date of filing the application for maintenance. For enforcement/execution of orders of maintenance, an order or decree of maintenance may be enforced under S 28A of the H M A, 1956; S 20(6) of the D.V. Act; and S 128 of Cr.P.C., as may be applicable – Order of maintenance may be enforced as a money decree of a civil court as per the provisions of the CPC, more particularly Ss 51, 55, 58, 60 r.w. Order XXI.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJNESH — Appellant Vs. NEHA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Indu Malhotra, and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 730…

(IPC) – S 302, 34 – Refusal to undergo Test Identification Parade (TIP) – Guilt cannot be based purely on the refusal to undergo a (TIP) – Ballistics evidence connecting the empty cartridges & the bullets recovered from the body of the deceased with an alleged weapon of offence is contradictory and suffers from serious infirmities. Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH RAJESH @ SARKARI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra and Indira…

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 – Kerala Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010 – Rule 4 – Restrictions on activities within wetlands -It is open to the Appellant to challenge the order of the Collector dated 30.04.2019 in accordance with law –

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH THOMAS LAWRENCE — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Rohinton Fali Nariman, Navin Sinha and Indira Banerjee,…

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is at a nascent stage and it is better that the interpretation of the provisions of the Code is taken up by this Court to avoid any confusion, and to authoritatively settle the law – Personal gurantor – Writ Petitions are transferred from the High Courts to SCOI

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH  INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY BOARD OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. LALIT KUMAR JAIN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta…

Child Custody – During interaction on the video-conferencing platform, “S” son of the Appellant/Respondent indicated his desire to reside with his mother in Singapore – While the child is attached to the respondent, he has indicated, in no uncertain terms, his desire to live with his mother. Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MRS RITIKA SHARAN — Appellant Vs. MR SUJOY GHOSH — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee, JJ.…

U P Mining Minerals (Concession) R, 1963 – Rule 40(h) – disruption of mining operations- State of UP states that they are only liable to refund (i) any security deposit; or (ii) advance royalties paid to them, for this obstructed period – the State already consented and recorded in such order .

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DHARMENDRA KUMAR SINGH — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh…

You missed