Latest Post

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. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 415 — Appeal — Maintainability — Conviction recorded for first time by appellate court reversing acquittal — An appeal under Section 374 CrPC (Section 415 BNSS) is not maintainable against a judgment of conviction recorded by a Sessions Court while exercising appellate jurisdiction and reversing an order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court — No such second appeal is contemplated under CrPC or BNSS — The only remedy available is revision under Section 397 r/w 401 CrPC (Section 438 r/w 442 BNSS) Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 44B — “Carriage” of passengers — Meaning and scope of — Cruise operations by non-resident shipping entity — Held, the word “carriage” under Section 44B cannot be restrictively construed to mean movement only from Port A to Port B. A round-trip cruise voyage, where passengers have the option to disembark at intermediate ports without compulsion to return to the originating port, constitutes carriage of passengers within the meaning of Section 44B. Provision of incidental on-board entertainment and hospitality does not alter the essential character of the activity as carriage of passengers. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Quashing of FIR — Scope of inquiry — Mini-trial impermissible — At the stage of considering quashing of an FIR, the Court’s inquiry is confined to whether the allegations, taken at face value, prima facie disclose commission of a cognizable offence — Court cannot conduct a “mini-trial” by sifting evidence, assessing probabilities, or evaluating witness credibility — High Court exceeding these limits by examining trap proceedings, absence of personal recovery, and departmental enquiry findings, held impermissible. Succession Act, 1925 — Sections 33, 35 and 38 — Hindu/Christian Succession — Applicability of S. 33 confined to property owned by deceased male; erroneous application by High Court set aside — Where property was purchased and registered in the joint names of two wives, the same is owned by them and not by the husband, notwithstanding that he provided the consideration — Section 33, which governs devolution on intestacy of a male’s property between his widow and lineal descendants, is not attracted to property never vested in the husband’s name — High Court’s application of S. 33 to the entirety of the suit property held misconceived.

Cr P C, 1973 – Section 167(2) – Default bail – Right of – No other condition of deposit – Where the investigation is not completed within 60 days or 90 days, as the case may be, and no chargesheet is filed by 60th or 90th day, accused gets an “indefeasible right” to default bail

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SARAVANAN — Appellant Vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and M.R. Shah,…

Shared household means where person aggrieved has lived at any time in domestic relationship either singly or with respondent – The household may be a joint family or jointly tenanted irrespective of title or ownership of property. “Right to reside in shared household” – The aggrieved has right to reside in shared household property continues until she proves that she is a victim of domestic violence,

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SATISH CHANDER AHUJA — Appellant Vs. SNEHA AHUJA — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and M.R. Shah, JJ. ) Civil…

POSCO – -Victim aged 15 years at the time of deposition is matured – Even there can be a conviction based on the sole testimony of the victim, however, she must be found to be reliable and trustworthy – Sole testimony of the victim is absolutely trustworthy and unblemished and her evidence is of sterling quality

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH GANESAN — Appellant Vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY ITS INSPECTOR OF POLICE — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and M.R. Shah,…

Service Matters

HELD Post of District Judge (Entry Level) – a criminal case against the appellant under Section 498A/406/34 IPC was pending which was registered on a complaint filed by the wife of the appellant – Such decision of the Committee was well within the jurisdiction and power of the Committee and cannot be said to be unsustainable – Mere fact that subsequently after more than a year when the person whose candidature has been cancelled has been acquitted cannot be a ground to turn the clock backward.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANIL BHARDWAJ — Appellant Vs. THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and M.R. Shah,…

Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5- Condonation of Delay – in any event the petitioner herein cannot claim benefit of an interim order from the date of disposal of the Writ Appeal – In such event, though this Court has condoned the delay, the grant of an order of statusquo at that juncture was without reference to all these aspects.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH HANUMAPPA (SINCE DECEASED) BY HIS LRS. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. A.…

Minerals (Other than Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016-Lessees are granted time up to end of January, 2021 for the removal of the minerals excavated/mined on or before 15.03.2018 subject to payment of royalties and other charges. HELD If within the time stipulated above, the lessees could not remove the mineral, the Government shall invoke the power under Rule 12(1)(hh) – Application disposed of.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH CHOWGULE AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. GOA FOUNDATION AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. A. Bobde, CJI., A. S. Bopanna…

Rajasthan Pre-Emption Act, 1966 – Section 9 – Loss of right of pre-emption on transfer – A right is available once – whether to take it or leave it to a person having a right of pre-emption – If such person finds it is not worth once, it is not an open right available for all times to come to that person

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAGHUNATH (D) BY LRS. — Appellant Vs. RADHA MOHAN (D) THR. LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and…

You missed