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.
Service Matters

Service Law – Appointment – Contractual employees – Post of Computer Operator – No regular sanctioned post – High Court has committed a grave error in passing such an interim order restraining the appellant Corporation from appointing new set of contractual employees in place of original writ petitioners

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LIMITED — Appellant Vs. PIYUSH KANT SHARMA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, R.…

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.…

You missed