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.

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Rule 16(2) – Attachment (DRT) – If an attachment has been made under Schedule II to the Act, any private transfer or delivery of the property shall be void as against all claims enforceable under the attachment HELD Rule 16(1) also stipulates that no civil court can issue any process against such property in execution of a decree for the payment of money. However, the property can be transferred with the permission of the Tax Recovery Officer.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. CONNECTWELL INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara…

Vehicle Owner’s Insurance Claim Cannot Be Repudiated Merely Because Driver Was Possessing Fake Licence: SC HELD “If the driver produces a licence which on the face of it looks genuine, the employer is not expected to further investigate into the authenticity of the licence unless there is cause to believe otherwise. “

Vehicle Owner’s Insurance Claim Cannot Be Repudiated Merely Because Driver Was Possessing Fake Licence: SC [Read Judgment] Ashok Kini 4 March 2020 9:22 PM “If the driver produces a licence…

Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 370 and 370(2) – Abrogation of Article 370 – Refering the issue of scrapping Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir to a larger bench – There is no conflict between the judgments in the Prem Nath Kaul v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1959 SC 749 and the Sampat Prakash v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1970 SC 1118 – Plea of the counsel to refer the present matter to a larger Bench is rejected.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CONSTITUTION BENCH DR. SHAH FAESAL AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, R.…

Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 – Sections 161 and 157-B – Transfer of lands by persons belonging to Scheduled Tribe – HELD there is clear bar under Section 157-B of the Act for transfer of land by a Scheduled Tribe even by way of exchange as the word “or otherwise” indicates. When there is a clear statutory provision barring the transfer, it was not open to the High Court to substitute its view in the place of that provision.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER REVENUE AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. AKHALAQ HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi, S. Abdul Nazeer and A.S.…

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 482 – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 511, 109, 34, 120­B, 406, 409, 420, 405, 417 and 426 – Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI) – Section 13(2) – Quashing of criminal proceeding – HELD The SARFAESI Act is a complete code in itself which provides the procedure to be followed -A criminal proceeding would not be sustainable in a matter of the present nature, exposing the appellants even on that count to the proceedings before the Investigating Officer or the criminal court would not be justified

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH K. VIRUPAKSHA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi, S. Abdul Nazeer and…

You missed