Latest Post

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 7 Rule 11 — Rejection of plaint — Abuse of process — Family arrangement (KBPP) and Conciliation Award — Allegations of undue influence, coercion, misrepresentation, and fabrication — Grounds for challenge were distinct for KBPP and Award — Lower courts erred in rejecting plaint by treating documents as one Conciliation Award and dismissing allegations of fraud due to admitted execution of KBPP — Allegations of coercion need not be limited to life threat and can arise from subservience — Rejection of plaint was erroneous as prima facie cause of action disclosed, suit not vexatious or abuse of process. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 108, 80, 103, 85 — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Sections 3, 4 — Offences — Abetment to suicide, Dowry death, Murder — Allegations of extra-marital relationship, demand of money/dowry — Deceased died of poisoning/injection — Autopsy findings — Prosecution case not strong at bail stage. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 33(1) — Requirement for employer to seek permission before altering service conditions or stopping work of workmen during pendency of dispute — Failure to do so constitutes a breach of the Act. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Sections 10(1), 12 — Reference of industrial dispute — Apprehended dispute — Appropriate Government’s power to refer — The appropriate Government has the power to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication if it is of the opinion that such dispute exists or is apprehended. The initiation of conciliation proceedings under Section 12 does not statutorily require a prior demand notice to the employer as a pre-condition to approaching the Conciliation Officer. The management’s argument that a prior demand notice is essential, based on certain previous judgments, fails as it ignores the provision for referring an apprehended dispute, which can be invoked to prevent industrial unrest Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 175(4) — Complaints against public servants alleged to have committed offenses in discharge of official duties — Interpretation — This provision is not a standalone provision, nor is it a proviso to Section 175(3) — It must be read in harmony with Section 175(3), with Section 175(4) forming an extension of Section 175(3) — The power to order investigation under Section 175(3) is conferred upon a judicial magistrate, while Section 175(4) also confers such power but prescribes a special procedure for complaints against public servants — The expression “complaint” in Section 175(4) does not encompass oral complaints and must be understood in the context of a written complaint supported by an affidavit, as required by Section 175(3) — This interpretation ensures that the procedural safeguard of an affidavit, mandated by Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., is not undermined even when dealing with public servants — The intention is to provide a two-tier protection: first, at the threshold stage under Section 175(4) with additional safeguards, and second, at the post-investigation stage under Section 218(1) regarding previous sanction. (Paras 26, 31, 37.1, 37.2, 37.4, 37.5, 37.6, 37.8, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI) – Sections 138, 143A and 148 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Sections 357(2) and 389 – Dishonour of cheque – Suspension of Sentence – Direction to deposit 25% of the amount of compensation – Appeal against same – Section 148 of the N.I. Act as amended, shall be applicable in respect of the appeals against the order of conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, even in a case where the criminal complaints for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act were filed prior to amendment Act No. 20/2018 i.e., prior to 01.09.2018.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH  SURINDER SINGH DESWAL @ COL. S.S.DESWAL AND OTHERS — Appellant  Vs.  VIRENDER GANDHI — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna, JJ.…

Brother In Law Can Be Ordered To Pay INTERIM Maintenance To Widow Under Domestic Violence Act HELD–Ultimately, whether the requirements of Section 2(f); Section 2(q); and Section 2(s) are fulfilled is a matter of evidence which will be adjudicated upon at the trial. At this stage, for the purpose of an interim order for maintenance, there was material which justifies the issuance of a direction in regard to the payment of maintenance.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 617 OF 2019 (@SLP(Crl.) No(s). 652 of 2019) AJAY KUMAR                                     Appellant(s) VERSUS LATA @ SHARUTI & ORS.                         …

Dishonour of ChequeFriendly LoanWhen financial capacity of complainant to lend the amount is being questioned, it was necessary for the complainant to have explained his financial capacityComplainant failed to prove his financial capacity to lend--A ccused acquitted.

Dishonour of ChequeRebuttable Presumption–Onus is on the accused to raise the probable defenceThe standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities.

Dishonour of ChequeRebuttable PresumptionInference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which they rely

2019(2) Law Herald (SC) 1113 : 2019 LawHerald.Org 826 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before HonTjle Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph Criminal Appeal No. 636…

Rape—False promise to marry—If it is established and proved that from very beginning the accused who gave the promise to the prosecutrix to marry, did not have any intention to marry and the prosecutrix gave the consent for sexual intercourse on such an assurance by the accused that he would marry her; such a consent by the prosecutrix would not be an excuse for the offender Rape—False promise to marry—Merely because the accused had married with another lady and/or even the prosecutrix has subsequently married, is no ground not to convict the accused

2019(2) Law Herald (SC) 1097 : 2019 LawHerald.Org 825 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. R. Shah Criminal Appeal…

COMPENSATION TO BE AWARDED – CONSUMER FORA — The amount of the interest is the compensation to the beneficiary deprived of the use of the investment made by the complainant – Therefore, such interest will take into its ambit, the consequences of delay in not handing over his possession – In fact, that the learned SCDRC as well as NCDRC has awarded compensation under different heads on account of singular default of not handing over possession – Such award under various heads in respect of the same default is not sustainable.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DLF HOMES PANCHKULA PVT. LTD. — Appellant Vs. D.S. DHANDA, ETC. ETC. — Respondent ( Before : D.Y. Chandrachud and Hemant Gupta, JJ. )…

You missed