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.

[COVID-19] SC Issues Slew Of Directions To Implement Video Conferencing In All Courts Across The Country HELD “Every individual and institution is expected to cooperate in the implementation of measures designed to reduce the transmission of the virus. The scaling down of conventional operations within the precincts of courts is a measure in that direction.”

[COVID-19] SC Issues Slew Of Directions To Implement Video Conferencing In All Courts Across The Country [Read Order] LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK 6 April 2020 5:10 PM “Every individual and institution…

COVID-19 pandemic – Distribution of surgical /n95 masks and also the sale and distribution of hand sanitizers and liquid soap and to make such items available to the public at large at reasonable prices – Helpline to be provided at the control rooms responding to complaints by persons who are not able to secure surgical/n95 masks and the hand sanitizers and liquid soaps at the prices fixed by the Government of India.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS DIVISION BENCH JUSTICE FOR RIGHTS FOUNDATION AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara…

Electricity Act, 2003 – Levy of wheeling charges – Transmission licence – It was contended on behalf of HPCL that 110 kV HPCL line is a transmission line – The metering for HPCL is done at TPC-D sub-station which is admittedly a transmission asset – The CEA Regulations 2010, the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (Transmission Open Access) Regulations, 2016 and the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (Distribution Open Access) Regulations, 2016 provide for demarcation between the transmission and distribution boundaries on the basis of voltage – The Tribunal erred in ignoring the said Regulations while holding that 2×110 kV lines are part of the distribution system HELD Tribunal judgement set aside, remitted for fresh adjudication.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SAI WARDHA POWER GENERATION LIMITED — Appellant Vs. THE TATA POWER COMPANY LIMITED DISTRIBUTION AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao…

Service Matters

Service Law – Disaster Management Act, 2005 – Section 44 – Disaster Management (National Disaster Response Force) Rules, 2008 – Rule – 75 – Deputation Allowance – Jurisdiction of High Court – Till 11.09.2009 the respondent continued to be under the control of his parent organisation i.e. CISF and was also getting his pay and allowances from the said authority. Therefore, though he as a member of his Battalion may have been serving the NDRF, it cannot be said that he was on deputation to the NDRF

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. R. THIYAGARAJAN — Respondent ( Before : Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

NDTV TAX CASE : Income Tax Act, 1961 – Sections 147 proviso 2 and 148 – Scrutiny Notice – If the revenue is to rely upon the second proviso and wanted to urge that the limitation of 16 years would apply, then in opinion in the notice or at least in the reasons in support of the notice, the assessee should have been put to notice that the revenue relies upon the second proviso HELD We accordingly allow the appeal by holding that the notice issued to the assessee shows sufficient reasons to believe on the part of the assessing officer to reopen the assessment but since the revenue has failed to show non-disclosure of facts the notice having been issued after a period of 4 years is required to be quashed.Therefore, the revenue may issue fresh notice taking benefit of the second proviso if otherwise permissible under law.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NEW DELHI TELEVISION LIMITED — Appellant Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Deepak Gupta, JJ.…

Landlord and Tenant — Eviction — Denial of relationship — Original owner inducted tenant — Owner made family settlement in favour of his son with regard to demised premises, thus son of landlord acquired title — Such confernment/settlement to title cannot be questioned by tenant — Eviction petition by son of original landlord on  his  personal necessity upheld.

2020(1) Indian Civil Cases 761 (S.C.) SUPREME  COURT  OF INDIA Before :– R. BANUMATHI, A.S. BOPANNA & HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ. Civil Appeal No. 6572 of 2010 / Decided on 15/11/2019…

Environmental Clearances – Circular – Grant of ex post facto environmental clearances – HELD This Court must take a balanced approach which holds the industries to account for having operated without environmental clearances in the past without ordering a closure of operations – The directions of the NGT for the revocation of the ECs and for closure of the units do not accord with the principle of proportionality – Penalties must be imposed for the disobedience with a binding legal regime – The breach by the industries cannot be left unattended by legal consequences –

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ALEMBIC PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED — Appellant Vs. ROHIT PRAJAPATI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Ajay Rastogi, JJ. )…

You missed