Latest Post

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 7 Rule 11 — Rejection of plaint — Abuse of process — Family arrangement (KBPP) and Conciliation Award — Allegations of undue influence, coercion, misrepresentation, and fabrication — Grounds for challenge were distinct for KBPP and Award — Lower courts erred in rejecting plaint by treating documents as one Conciliation Award and dismissing allegations of fraud due to admitted execution of KBPP — Allegations of coercion need not be limited to life threat and can arise from subservience — Rejection of plaint was erroneous as prima facie cause of action disclosed, suit not vexatious or abuse of process. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 108, 80, 103, 85 — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Sections 3, 4 — Offences — Abetment to suicide, Dowry death, Murder — Allegations of extra-marital relationship, demand of money/dowry — Deceased died of poisoning/injection — Autopsy findings — Prosecution case not strong at bail stage. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 33(1) — Requirement for employer to seek permission before altering service conditions or stopping work of workmen during pendency of dispute — Failure to do so constitutes a breach of the Act. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Sections 10(1), 12 — Reference of industrial dispute — Apprehended dispute — Appropriate Government’s power to refer — The appropriate Government has the power to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication if it is of the opinion that such dispute exists or is apprehended. The initiation of conciliation proceedings under Section 12 does not statutorily require a prior demand notice to the employer as a pre-condition to approaching the Conciliation Officer. The management’s argument that a prior demand notice is essential, based on certain previous judgments, fails as it ignores the provision for referring an apprehended dispute, which can be invoked to prevent industrial unrest Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 175(4) — Complaints against public servants alleged to have committed offenses in discharge of official duties — Interpretation — This provision is not a standalone provision, nor is it a proviso to Section 175(3) — It must be read in harmony with Section 175(3), with Section 175(4) forming an extension of Section 175(3) — The power to order investigation under Section 175(3) is conferred upon a judicial magistrate, while Section 175(4) also confers such power but prescribes a special procedure for complaints against public servants — The expression “complaint” in Section 175(4) does not encompass oral complaints and must be understood in the context of a written complaint supported by an affidavit, as required by Section 175(3) — This interpretation ensures that the procedural safeguard of an affidavit, mandated by Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., is not undermined even when dealing with public servants — The intention is to provide a two-tier protection: first, at the threshold stage under Section 175(4) with additional safeguards, and second, at the post-investigation stage under Section 218(1) regarding previous sanction. (Paras 26, 31, 37.1, 37.2, 37.4, 37.5, 37.6, 37.8, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44)
Service Matters

Service Law – Regularization – It is clear from the order of appointment of the appellant that she was provisionally appointed to the post of EDE – It was clarified in the appointment order itself that the provisional appointment will be terminated when regular appointment is made and that she shall have no claim for appointment to any post

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KAMLESH — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF POST AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Abdul Nazeer and Deepak…

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 8 Rule 1 – Decree of specific performance of an agreement to sell – Right to file written statement – within the shorter timeline of 90 days HELD – taking a lenient view given the unique circumstances of the case, and without laying down the discretion being exercised hereinafter, as a precedent, This Court direct that the written statement filed by the appellant on 02.11.2017 (as claimed), be taken on record – Cost Rs 25000

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH DESH RAJ — Appellant Vs. BALKISHAN (D) THROUGH PROPOSED LR MS. ROHINI — Respondent ( Before : S. A. Bobde, CJI., B.R. Gavai and…

Service Matters

Indian Defence Service of Engineers (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2016 – Rule 12 – Rules not apply to Army Officers – It is categorically laid down in Rule 12 of the IDSE Rules that the Rules shall not apply to Army Officers appointed on a tenure basis as they are governed by the Army Act and the Rules framed thereunder – There is no dispute that the Respondent was appointed on a tenure basis in accordance with the MES Regulations

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. BRIG. BALBIR SINGH (RETD.) — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta, JJ.…

Environmental Clearance (EC) for the development of a greenfield International airport at Mopa in Goa – HELD This Court direct the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute to be appointed to oversee compliance with the directions cumulatively issued by this Court – Project proponent shall bear the costs, expenses and fees of NEERI – The suspension on the EC shall accordingly stand lifted – The Miscellaneous Application is accordingly disposed of.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HANUMAN LAXMAN AROSKAR — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Hemant Gupta, JJ.…

You missed