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.

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) Sections 420 and 120-B – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) – Fake loan to relatives – . The respondents are beneficiary of the grant of cash credit limit when their father was the President of the Bank. The power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 cannot be exercised where the allegations are required to be proved in court of law.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Appellant Vs. YOGENDRA SINGH JADON AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta, JJ.…

Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 – Section 37(1) and 154 – Demand of premium – Letter of Intent – In this case it is to be noted that the Letter of Intent was valid for a period of three months only – If, for any reason, delay is occurred in obtaining clearance from the Coastal Zone Management Authority, nothing prevented the appellants to make appropriate representation so as to keep the Letter of Intent alive. Appeal dismissed

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UTTAR BHARTIYA RAJAK SAMAJ PANCHAYAT BANGANGA RAJAK SAMAJ CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY (PROPOSED) AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY AND OTHERS…

Cheating – Quashing of proceedings – There are no such specific allegations against the appellants being Managing Director or the Director of the company respectively – It is required to be noted that though the FIR was filed in the year 2000 and the charge-sheet was submitted/filed as far back as on 28.5.2004, the appellants were served with the summons only in the year 2017, i.e., after a period of approximately 13 years from the date of filing the charge-sheet. QUASHED

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUSHIL SETHI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and M. R.…

Magistrate While Holding Inquiry U/s 202 CrPC Required To Take A Broad View And a Prima Facie Case: SC HELD criminal proceedings initiated are an abuse of process of law or the Court or not and/or whether the dispute is purely of civil nature or not and/or whether the civil dispute is tried to be given a colour of criminal dispute or not.

  Magistrate While Holding Inquiry U/s 202 CrPC Required To Take A Broad View And a Prima Facie Case: SC [Read Judgment] LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK 31 Jan 2020 9:28 PM…

Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 – Section 351 – Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 – Section 3Z(2)(i) – Transferable Development Rights – legal heirs of the original owner of the land were the petitioners in one writ petition and eleven persons claiming to be the tenants, were the petitioners in the other writ petitions – Insofar as persons claiming to be the owners of the land are concerned, the Municipal Corporation itself had conceded before the High Court that they were willing to offer TDR.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. PANNA MAHESH CHANDRA DAVE AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : N.V.…

You missed