Latest Post

Allotment of Land — Irregularity — Public Interest Litigation — Demolition vs. Regularisation — The court must balance the wrong committed with the current reality and socio-economic consequences — Demolition of a fully operational commercial complex, involving significant investment, employment, and tax revenue, may not serve public interest if financial restitution is possible. All India Service (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 — Rule 16(2A) — Voluntary Retirement — Acceptance by Central Government — Central Government has the ultimate authority to accept or reject a Voluntary Retirement (VRS) notice — It is not bound by the State Government’s recommendation and must apply its mind to all relevant facts and circumstances — This power is not unconstrained and is guided by DoPT Guidelines, requiring consideration of pending or contemplated disciplinary proceedings that could lead to a major penalty — The Central Government can accept a VRS request even if a major penalty is possible, but this requires a conscious and well-informed decision — Appeals allowed, order of Central Government rejecting VRS set aside, and matter remitted for fresh consideration. Environment Law — Illegal Sand Mining — Supreme Court’s directions for States to file compliance affidavits — Court expresses displeasure at Rajasthan’s lacklustre response and apathy in implementing directions affecting National Chambal Sanctuary — Rajasthan directed to ensure personal presence of senior officers with compliance reports — Court also directs Madhya Pradesh to address issue of unregistered vehicles. Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1991 — Temporary status casual labourer — Entitlement to pensionary benefits — Held, entitled even in the absence of formal regularisation, provided eligibility criteria under Rule 10(1-B) of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, are fulfilled. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — Sections 8, 10, 19 — Property of a male Hindu dying intestate — Devolution of property — Heirs taking property as tenants-in-common and not joint tenants — Each heir having a definite and separate share — No presumption of coparcenary property.—-Section 8 — Property inherited by a son from his father — Son takes the property in his individual capacity and not as karta of his own Hindu Undivided Family — Descendants of the heir do not acquire rights in such property by birth.

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 166, 165, 420, 468 and 471 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 – Sections 5(1)(d) and 5(2) – Cheating – Appeal against conviction and sentence – Appellant knowing fully well that the invoices/bills were fake and fabricated, were presented on behalf of the firm to the bank and thus cheated the bank – Crime test requires to evaluate and provide adequate deference to factors such as role of the accused and his position within the rank of conspirators, among other things

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MAYANK N SHAH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, R. Subhash Reddy and B.R. Gavai,…

SC Sets Aside Death Sentence In A 13 Day Trial, Says ‘Fast Tracking Must Not Result In Burial Of Justice’ – HELD expeditious disposal of criminal cases must never result in burying the cause of justice. The bench comprising Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice Indu Malhotra and Justice Krishna Murari set aside a death penalty awarded to a rape and murder accused in a trial that finished within thirteen days.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ANOKHI LAL — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, Indu Malhotra and Krishna Murari, JJ. )…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302, 307, 147, 148, 149 and 452 – Murder – Unlawful assembly – Common object – Appeal against acquittal – Medical evidence and ocular evidence – It is trite law that minor variations between medical evidence and ocular evidence do not take away the primacy of the latter.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH — Appellant Vs. RAVINDRA @ BABLOO AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and Navin Sinha, JJ. )…

Nirbhaya gang rape and murder case – IPC – Sections 376(2)(g), 120-B, 377, 365, 366, 395, 397, 302, 307, 412 – Unnatural sex and inserted iron rod in the private parts of the prosecutrixHELD Review Petition – In the judgment dated 05.05.2017, this Court held that the case is falling within “the rarest of rare cases”

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH AKSHAY KUMAR SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan and A. S. Bopanna, JJ.…

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 482 – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 379 – Uttar Pradesh Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1963 – Rules 3, 57 and 7 – Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 – Sections 4 and 21 – Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 – Sections 3 and 4 – Theft of mining sand – Quashing of complaint – Mere violation of Section 4 which is an offence cognizable only under Section 21 of the Mines Regulation Act and not under any other law – There is no bar on the Court from taking cognizance of the offence under Section 379 of the IPC

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KANWAR PAL SINGH — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : S. Abdul Nazeer and Sanjiv Khanna,…

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Sections 154 and 164 – Registration of FIR – Recording of confessions and statements – Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. provides about the information in cognizable cases and in effect registration of First Information Reports. The first Proviso to the sub-Section (1) of Section 154 inserted by the Amendment Act of 2013 and subsequently amended by the Amendment Act of 2018, provides for registration of First Information Report in cases of rape and sexual offences by a woman police officer or any woman officer

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH IN RE : ASSESSMENT OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IN RESPONSE TO SEXUAL OFFENCES ( Before : S.A. Bobde, CJI, B.R. Gavai and Surya…

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 34 and 34(4) – Arbitral award – Legislative intention of providing Section 34(4) in the Arbitration Act was to make the award enforceable, after giving an opportunity to the Tribunal to undo the curable defects HELD that ordinarily unintelligible awards are to be set aside, while the challenge on inadequacy of reasons, has to be adjudicated based on the degree of particularity of reasoning required having regard to the nature of issues falling for consideration.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M/S. DYNA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. — Appellant Vs. M/S. CROMPTON GREAVES LTD. — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and…

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 142 – Complete justice – Provisions of Article 142 of the Constitution provide a unique power to the Supreme Court, to do “complete justice” between the parties, i.e., where at times law or statute may not provide a remedy, the Court can extend itself to put a quietus to a dispute in a manner which would befit the facts of the case. Divorce granted.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MUNISH KAKKAR — Appellant Vs. NIDHI KAKKAR — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and K.M. Joseph, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 9318…

V IMP :: Supreme Court recently dissolved a marriage by exercising its inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, even as it recognised that there is no statutory law for recognising irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce in India.- HELD “on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, if this is not a fit case to grant divorce, what would be a fit case!”

Irretrievable breakdown of marriage: “Nothing remains in this marriage”, Supreme Court invokes Article 142 to grant divorce Rintu Mariam Biju December 18 2019 The Supreme Court recently dissolved a marriage by exercising its inherent powers…

Service Matters

Candidate Not Estopped From Challenging Selection Process When Misconstruction Of Statutory Rules Is Alleged HELD candidate will not be estopped from challenging a selection process on the ground of having participated in it when there is allegation of “misconstruction of statutory rules and discriminating consequences arising therefrom”.

Candidate Not Estopped From Challenging Selection Process When Misconstruction Of Statutory Rules Is Alleged : SC [Read Judgment] LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK 17 Dec 2019 7:58 PM In a notable judgment…

You missed