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.

HELD The Registration Certificate of vehicles which do not possess a valid PUC Certificate shall be forthwith suspended and/or cancelled, and penal measures initiated against the owner and/or the person(s) in possession and/or control of the offending vehicle, in accordance with law.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Appellant Vs. CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Arun Mishra…

(CrPC) – Ss 372 and 377 – (IPC) – Ss 364A and 34 – Kidnapping for ransom – Enhancement of sentence -It is fairly well settled that the remedy of appeal is creature of the Statute. – State Government to prefer appeal for inadequate sentence under Section 377, Cr.PC but similarly no appeal can be maintained by victim under Section 372, Cr.PC on the ground of inadequate sentence.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PARVINDER KANSAL — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and R. Subhash…

(CrPC) – S 357(3) – Release of compensation – Police officers have illegally detained complainant’s son in connection with a theft case and he was tortured in the police lock up and succumbed to the injuries – Appellant herein who is the father of the victim is relentlessly pursuing the matter from last more than a decade -Instead of ordering release of compensation to the appellant at this stage – It appropriate to request the High Court for expeditious disposal of the Case – Appeal dismissed.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DALBIR SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and R. Subhash…

IMP : Disaster Management Act, 2005 – Section 71 and 72 – Jurisdiction – Students cannot be promoted without exams – State Governments or State Disaster Management Authority in exercise of power under Disaster Management Act, 2005 has no jurisdiction to take a decision that the students of final year/terminal students should be promoted on the basis of earlier year assessment and internal assessment

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH PRANEETH K AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION (UGC) AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy…

Non-Supply of fuel to vehicles without PUC Certificate – Appeal against – Tribunal had no power and/or authority and/or jurisdiction to pass orders directing the Appellant State Government to issue orders, instructions or directions on dealers, outlets and petrol pumps not to supply fuel to vehicles without PUC Certificate – Appeal allowed.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Appellant Vs. CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Arun Mishra…

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 7 – A personal Loan to a Promoter or a Director of a company cannot trigger the Corporate Resolution Process under the IBC. Disputes as to whether the signatures of the Respondents are forged or whether records have been fabricated can be adjudicated upon evidence including forensic evidence in a regular suit and not in proceedings under Section 7 of the IBC.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S RADHA EXPORTS (INDIA) PVT. LIMITED. — Appellant Vs. K.P. JAYARAM AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Arun Mishra and Indira Banerjee,…

Decree of possession – A decree of possession does not automatically follow a decree of declaration of title and ownership over property – It is well settled that, where a Plaintiff wants to establish that the Defendant’s original possession was permissive, it is for the Plaintiff to prove this allegation and if he fails to do so, it may be presumed that possession was adverse, unless there is evidence to the contrary.

 “A decree of possession does not automatically follow a decree of declaration of title and ownership over property. “   SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NAZIR MOHAMED — Appellant…

Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006 – Section 4(5) – Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 14, 15, 16, 338, 341, 342, and 342A – Permissibility of Sub-Classification within Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes Reservation – State Government has the power to make reservation and make such sub – classification and that would not amount to tinkering with lists. Matter referred to larger bench.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CONSTITUTION BENCH THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. DAVINDER SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet…

Pleas Of Title And Adverse Possession Cannot Be Advanced Simultaneously HELD  The possession has to be in public and to the knowledge of the true owner as adverse, and this is necessary as a plea of adverse possession seeks to defeat the rights of the true owner.And From The Same Date HELD

The Supreme Court has observed that plea of title and adverse possession cannot be advanced simultaneously and from the same date.  “We fail to appreciate how, on the one hand…

You missed