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)

Accident—Claim Petition—Standard of proof to be followed is preponderance of probability and not the strict standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubts Accident—Claim Petition—Testimony of eyewitness cannot be held as unreliable merely because his name was not mentioned in list of witnesses in the criminal proceedings.

2019(1) Law Herald (SC) 693 : (2019) 3 SCALE 393 2019 LawHerald.Org 702 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi…

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13(1)(ia)(iii) – Custody of child.–This Court also interacted with the boy and the boy expressed his desire to continue his studies only in Shahjanpur school. When the boy is not inclined to study in Col. Satsangi’s Kiran Memorial Public School, New Delhi, and stay in the Boarding House. In the interest of the welfare of the child, he cannot be compelled to admit in Col. Satsangi’s Kiran Memorial Public School, New Delhi, attached with the Boarding House.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NUTAN GAUTAM — Appellant Vs. @ PRAKASH GAUTAM — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

Adverse possession – Co‐sharer – It is a settled principle of law that the possession of one co-sharer is possession of all co-sharers, it cannot be adverse to them, unless there is a denial of their right to their knowledge by the person in possession, and exclusion and ouster following thereon for the statutory period. [See Mohammad Baqar and Others vs. Naim-un-Nisa Bibi and Others, AIR 1956 SC 548]

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH T. RAMALINGESWARA RAO (DEAD) THR. LRS. AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. N. MADHAVA RAO AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay Manohar Sapre…

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302-Murder-Intention to kill-Multiple Injuries—Assault with iron rod on head of deceased—Three injuries were caused by appellant on head of deceased—Keeping in view the weapons used, the place of injuries and the force with which the deceased was assaulted by the accused shows clear intention on the part of said accused to commit murder—Act of accused would not fall within any of the exceptions u/s 3OO IPC-Conviction u/s 302 IPC upheld

2019(1) Law Herald (SC) 676 : 2019 LawHerald.Org 618 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana Criminal Appeal Nos.…

Murder—Common Intention—Acquittal—Mere fact that accused appellants caught hold of deceased facilitating the other accused   r persons to come with a sharp edged weapon and gave blows, it cannot be said that the accused appellants shared common intention with the other accused persons.

  2019(1) Law Herald (SC) 723 : 2019 LawHerald.Org 705 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Criminal Appeal No(s).…

Indian Penal Code, 1908, S.376–Rape–Delay in lodging FIR– Acquittal-Delay of 7 months in lodging FIR-In present case evidence adduced by prosecutrix falls short of test of reliability and acceptability and as such it is highly unreliable to act upon It-­ Critical examination of evidence on record is warranted in such cases- -Accused acquitted.

2019(1) Law Herald (SC) 710 : 2019 LawHerald.Org 703 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Chief Justice Ranjan Gogol Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul Hon’ble Mr.…

Service Matters

Service Law-Continuity in Service–Seniority–After Termination of service, a fresh appointment was given—Continuity in service cannot be granted when neither termination nor the fresh appointment was challenged-Seniority of workman shall be counted with effect from the date of his fresh appointment.

2019(1) Law Herald (SC) 736 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 2143 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Honble Mr. Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah Civil Appeal…

You missed