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.

Electricity Supply Cannot Be Disconnected For Recovery Of Additional Demand Raised After Expiry Of Two Years Limitation Period HELD Section 56(2) however, does not preclude the licensee company from raising a supplementary demand after the expiry of the limitation period of two years. It only restricts the right of the licensee to disconnect electricity supply due to non-payment of dues after the period of limitation of two years has expired

Electricity Supply Cannot Be Disconnected For Recovery Of Additional Demand Raised After Expiry Of Two Years Limitation Period: SC [Read Judgment] LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK 19 Feb 2020 2:31 PM The…

Matrimonial Dispute – Petitioner has stated in her application that she is left homeless – Court are not entering into the merits of the rival contentions between the parties which will be heard at a future date – By way of an ad-hoc arrangement, This Court direct the respondent to pay a lump sum amount of Rs 4 lakhs to the petitioner on or before 31 March 2020.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NEELAM MANMOHAN ATTAVAR — Appellant Vs. MANMOHAN ATTAVAR (D) THR LRS. — Respondent ( Before : D.Y. Chandrachud and Surya Kant, JJ. ) I.A.…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) -Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 – Allegation is that the appellant had sold the same flat to two persons – Continued custody of the appellant is not warranted – Charges have already been framed – Appellant has been in custody for over a year and three months – This Court direct that the appellant be released on bail

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KHURSHID KHAN — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Surya Kant, JJ. ) Criminal…

Registration of vehicles – As per the details of vehicles and chassis number filed by learned counsel, pursuant to this Court’s order, as they have already been purchased and are BS-IV compliant, as a one time measure they are ordered to be registered within ten days of lifting of lock-down in the city concerned,

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION — Appellant Vs. GNCTD — Respondent ( Before : Arun Mishra and Deepak Gupta, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No(s). 4908-4909/2019…

Bail – Humanitarian grounds – There is no member of the family who is available to look after the spouse of the applicant and she is presently in the care of domestic staff – Applicant’s spouse had undergone three invasive open heart cardiac surgeries in the past and that she suffers from other serious medical conditions – In the past, when the applicant was released on interim bail, he had complied with the conditions which were imposed by the Court and had returned to custody as directed

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUBRATA BHATTACHARYA — Appellant Vs. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : D.Y. Chandrachud and Surya Kant, JJ.…

Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 – Grant of interim bail – Medical grounds – Applicant is a builder who is alleged to have defrauded nearly 1400 persons and to have collected an amount of over Rs 40 crores – Since the applicant has been in custody for over three and half years and has suffered from cancer for which he had to undergo surgery – It appropriate and proper to direct release of the applicant on interim bail for a period of six weeks

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AZAM KHAN — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA — Respondent ( Before : D.Y. Chandrachud and Surya Kant, JJ. ) I.A. No.47747/2020 in…

Measures for protection of health and welfare of the prisoners to restrict the transmission of COVID-19 – HELD Taking into consideration the possibility of outside transmission, this Court directs that the physical presence of all the undertrial prisoners before the Courts must be stopped forthwith and recourse to video conferencing must be taken for all purposes – Also, the transfer of prisoners from one prison to another for routine reasons must not be resorted except for decongestion to ensure social distancing and medical assistance to an ill prisoner

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH IN RE: CONTAGION OF COVID 19 VIRUS IN PRISONS ( Before : Sharad Arvind Bobde, C.J.I, L. Nageswara Rao and Surya Kant, JJ. )…

Application Not Necessary For Producing Secondary Evidence : SC HELD foundation of leading of secondary evidence, either in the plaint or in evidence, the secondary evidence cannot be ousted for consideration only because an application for permission to lead secondary evidence was not filed.”

Application Not Necessary For Producing Secondary Evidence : SC [Read Judgment] LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK 27 March 2020 3:38 PM In a judgment delivered on March 19, the Supreme Court has…

Coronavirus: Consider bail for all undertrials facing up to 7 years in jail to decongest prisons, Supreme Court to states HELD “…the State/Union Territory could consider the release of prisoners who have been convicted or are undertrial for offences for which prescribed punishment is up to 7 years or less”,

  Coronavirus: Consider bail for all undertrials facing up to 7 years in jail to decongest prisons, Supreme Court to states “…the State/Union Territory could consider the release of prisoners…

You missed