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.

IN RE : PROBLEMS AND MISERIES OF MIGRANT LABOURERS HELD No fare either by train or by bus shall be charged from any migrant workers – Railway fare shall be shared by the States as per their arrangement as submitted by the learned Solicitor General and in no case any fare should be asked or charged from any migrant workers by the States and the Railways & other interim directions issued.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH IN RE : PROBLEMS AND MISERIES OF MIGRANT LABOURERS ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.R. Shah, JJ. ) (IA…

ACQUITTAL ::: Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 34, 394, 460 and 302 – Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti Avam Vyapharan Adhiniyam, 1981 – Sections 11 and 13 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 313 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27 and 114 -Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 34 – Common intention – Prosecution has to establish by evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, that there was plan or meeting of minds of all the accused persons to commit the offence for which they are charged with the aid of Section 34, be it pre-arranged or on the spur of the moment; but it must necessarily be before the commission of the crime.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SONU @ SUNIL — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and K.M. Joseph, JJ. )…

Service Matters

Bihar Service Code – Rule 73 – Compulsory retirement – Rule 73 of the Bihar Service Code does not prescribe any length of service as criteria for retirement. The prescribed age of retirement for employees of the category to which the Appellant belonged was 58 years, later increased to 60 years. The decision of the respondents to retire the Appellant before he attained the age of 60 years as per his actual date of birth. Matter referred to CJI as difference of opinion..

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GOPAL PRASAD — Appellant Vs. BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and Ajay Rastogi, JJ. )…

Service Matters

Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978 – Rule 34.3 – Payment of gratuity – Employer has a right to withhold gratuity during pendency of the disciplinary proceedings. HELD termination’ and ‘dismissal’ are held to be synonymous but the difference between ‘termination’ and ‘dismissal’ is that dismissal could be on account of misconduct with loss of future employment involving dishonesty or criminality and penal in character but that is not in the case of termination – The “termination” as per Black’s Law Dictionary is the complete severance of relationship of employer and employee which in the instant case could be saved during pendency of the disciplinary proceedings

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, MAHANADI COALFIELDS LIMITED — Appellant Vs. SRI RABINDRANATH CHOUBEY — Respondent ( Before : Arun Mishra, M.R. Shah and Ajay Rastogi,…

Partnership Act, 1932 – Sections 37 and 48 – Distinction between ‘retirement of a partner’ and ‘dissolution of a partnership firm’ – On retirement of the partner, the reconstituted firm continues and the retiring partner is to be paid his dues in terms of Section 37 of the Partnership Act. In case of dissolution, accounts have to be settled and distributed as per the mode prescribed in Section 48 of the Partnership Act.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH GURU NANAK INDUSTRIES, FARIDABAD AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. AMAR SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, Sanjiv Khanna and…

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 32 – Writ Petition – Conducting “single counselling” for filling up seats in the Post Graduate Medical Courses leading to Degrees and Diplomas and the seats in DNB (Diplomate of National Board) Courses. Admission is now at an advanced stage – HELD This Court do not deem it appropriate to pass any direction for the present year. However, going by the assertions made in the response filed by the Medical Council of India, we may observe that a common counselling or single online counselling in the coming years would definitely take care of any similar grievance.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ALAPATI JYOTSNA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Dinesh Maheshwari,…

SC Allows ED to Attach Assets Of JP Morgan And Its Directors To The Extent Of Amounts Allegedly Diverted From Amrapali Homebuyers HELD We lift the embargo created vide order dated 2nd December, 2019 not to attach the property of J.P. Morgan and its Directors. We permit the Enforcement Directorate to attach the Bank Accounts of J. P. Morgan as well as any other property belonging to J.P. Morgan and its Directors to the extent required”

SC Allows ED to Attach Assets Of JP Morgan And Its Directors To The Extent Of Amounts Allegedly Diverted From Amrapali Homebuyers [Read Order] LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK 23 May 2020…

You missed