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.

All India Council of Technical Education Act, 1987 – Section 2(g) – Technical education – Having realized the difficulties in view of dual regulations of pharmacy education under the PCI and AICTE HELD Therefore, even according to the Union of India, the word ‘pharmacy’ is to be deleted from the definition of ‘technical education’ contained in Section 2(g) of the AICTE Act.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH THE PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. DR. S.K. TOSHNIWAL EDUCATIONAL TRUSTS VIDARBHA INSTITUTE OF PHARMACY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before :…

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 80IA and 80IA(4)(i)(b) – – Deduction – As regards clause (b) of Section 80IA(4)(i), HELD the ITAT, as well as, the High Court have justly affirmed the view taken by the first appellate authority, holding that the respondent/assessee Company qualified for the deduction under Section 80IA being an enterprise carrying on the stated business pertaining to infrastructure facility Appeal dismissed.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR — Appellant Vs. M/S. CHETAK ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari,…

Service Matters

Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 – Section 1 – Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACP)- ACP Scheme which is now superseded by MACP Scheme is a matter of government policy – Interference with the recommendations of the expert body like Pay Commission and its recommendations for the MACP, would have serious impact on the public exchequer – HELD Impugned orders cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M.V. MOHANAN NAIR — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.…

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 11(6) – Appointment of arbitrator – Arbitration agreement entered into between the parties provides Hong Kong as the place of arbitration – Agreement between the parties choosing “Hong Kong” as the place of arbitration by itself will not lead to the conclusion that parties have chosen Hong Kong as the seat of arbitration -HELD Section 11 has no application to “International Commercial Arbitrations” seated outside India – Words in Clause 17.1 “without regard to its conflicts of laws provisions and courts at New Delhi shall have the jurisdiction” do not take away or dilute the intention of the parties in Clause 17.2 that the arbitration be administered in Hong Kong

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MANKASTU IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. AIRVISUAL LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. ) Arbitration…

Service Matters

HELD Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Services – Judicial review – Dismissal – Disciplinary action – Natural suspicion as to the integrity and honesty of the appellant in several land acquisition cases – Held, There is no explicit mention of any extraneous consideration being actually received or of unbecoming conduct on the part of the appellant – The order of dismissal dated 17.01.2006 passed by Respondent No. 1 is set-aside, and the appellant’s prayers for reinstatement with consequential benefits including retiral benefits, is accepted.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SADHNA CHAUDHARY — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : S.A. Bobde, CJI , B.R. Gavai and Surya Kant,…

Registration Act, 1908 – Section 17(1)(d) – Leases of immovable property – Lease deeds allegedly executed between the defaulting rice miller(s) and the respondent(s), as they do not satisfy the statutory requirements of Section 17(1) (d) HELD The writ petitions filed by the respondent lessees are dismissed, however, with liberty to pay dues with penalty/interest of the original rice millers and thereafter on production of ‘No Dues Certificate’ seek allocation of paddy for custom milling in accordance with the policy of FCI.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M/S. V.K. TRADERS AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S.A. Bobde, CJI , B.R.…

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(d) – Meaning of “Consumer” – Destruction of some part of the crop – Respondent lodged a consumer complaint alleging negligence and breach of contract on the part of the Appellant on the ground that the Appellant failed to buy back her produce, leading to the destruction of the greater part of the crop – Appellant contested the farmers’ claims before consumer fora on the preliminary point of maintainability right up to this Court, HELD Tendency to resist even the smallest of claims on any ground possible, by exploiting the relatively greater capacity of seed companies to litigate for long periods of time, amounts to little more than harassment of agriculturists, Appeal dismissed

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S NANDAN BIOMATRIX LIMITED — Appellant Vs. S. AMBIKA DEVI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and R. Subhash Reddy,…

V IMP :: Expeditious Adjudication Of Cheque Bounce Cases: SC Registers Suo Motu Writ Petition HELD “A matter which is supposed to be disposed of summarily by the trial court in six months, it took seven years for this case to be disposed of at the trial court level. A dispute of such nature has remained pending for 15 years in various courts, taking judicial time and space up till this Court”

Expeditious Adjudication Of Cheque Bounce Cases: SC Registers Suo Motu Writ Petition [Read Order] LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK 7 March 2020 7:28 PM The Supreme Court has registered a Suo Motu…

Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 14, 19 (1) (a), 19 (1) (c) and 21 – Organisation of political nature – Any organisation which habitually engages itself in or employs common methods of political action like ‘bandh’ or ‘hartal’ ,’rasta roko’, ‘rail roko’ or ‘jail bharo’ in support of public causes can also be declared as an organisation of political nature, according to the guideline prescribed in Rule 3 (vi) – Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH INDIAN SOCIAL ACTION FORUM (INSAF) — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Deepak Gupta, JJ. )…

Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 – Sections 7 and 11 – Adoption – Two important conditions as mentioned in Sections 7 and 11 of the Act of 1956 are the consent of the wife before a male Hindu adopts a child and proof of the ceremony of actual giving and taking in adoption – HELD Appellant was not adopted by the Respondent and her husband – Appellant had failed to prove that she has been adopted by the Respondent and her husband. – Appeal dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M. VANAJA — Appellant Vs. M. SARLA DEVI (DEAD) — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Deepak Gupta, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

You missed