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.
Service Matters

The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Jabalpur HELD We, thus, hold that the persons such as the respondent and the intervenors on deputation to APS from Department of Posts are not entitled to the benefit of OROP. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal is not sustainable in law and hence set aside. The appeal is allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. LT. COL. OM DUTT SHARMA (RETD.) DEAD THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before :…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 read with 34, 148 and 149 – Murder – Delay in registration of FIR – Accused persons denied their involvement in the commission of the offence – High Court, on reappreciation of the evidence on record, affirmed the finding of guilt against the appellants “R” (Accused No. 1) and “S” (Accused No. 2) but acquitted “R1” (Accused No. 4) and “D” (Accused No. 6) by giving them benefit of doubt. Appeal dismissed

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ROHTAS AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

What is the jural relationship between a chit fund entity and the subscribers, created by a chitty agreement;HELD “the relationship between a chit subscriber and the chit foreman is a contractual obligation, which creates a debt on the day of subscription. On default taking place, the foreman is entitled to recover the consolidated amount of future subscriptions from the defaulting subscriber in a lump sum.”

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S ORIENTAL KURIES LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN P.D. JOSE — Appellant Vs. LISSA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Indu Malhotra and…

Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 201, 302, 34, 436, 498A – Murder of wife – Deposition of medical officer – “there can no doubt that the medical doctor knows exactly what medical injuries are and ordinarily in case of inconsistency, the medical report of the doctor should prevail. Having regard to the post mortem and the evidence of P.W.1, the nature of injuries noticed as explained by the deposition of P.W.1 unerringly point to the death being caused by throttling as opined by the doctor

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAVED ABDUL RAJJAQ SHAIKH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and K.M. Joseph, JJ. ) Criminal…

Service Matters

Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 – Sections 16 and 18 – First Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Service Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1981 – Appointment of teachers HELD When the impugned judgment is analysed in light of the applicable norms, there is no escape from the conclusion that the appellant’s appointment by the Management, was not in accordance with paragraph 5 of the Removal of Difficulties Order.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH RAVINDRA SINGH — Appellant Vs. DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 326 – Summary Court Martial proceedings – Causing grievous hurt to Subedar/Master Technical – Acquittal – Appeal against – It is settled law that if two views can be reached, the one that leads to acquittal has to be preferred to the other, which would end in conviction. That apart, there is a clear violation of Rules 179 and 180 of the Rules and the respondent was deprived of an opportunity to defend himself.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SEPOY PRAVAT KUMAR BEHURIA — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta, JJ.…

Madras Forest Act, 1882 – Sections 6, 8 and 25 – Declaration of title – The significant proposals of the Respondent were that the title in respect of the Alagar Hills should be with that of the presiding deity of the Respondent- The finding recorded by the High Court that there is adequate material to hold that Alagar hills belong to the temple is erroneous. The trial Court is right in holding that the Respondent miserably failed in producing any material to prove its title

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU & ANR. ETC. ETC. — Appellant Vs. ARULMIGHU KALLALAGAR THIRUKOIL ALAGAR KOIL & ORS. ETC. ETC. — Respondent (…

This Court are inclined to grant interim relief claimed by the petitioner to release him on bail directly by this Court in connection with all the FIRs mentioned in prayer clause (c) and other FIRs that have been or likely to be registered against the petitioner in connection with the project, namely, “Grand Venice”, in particular, Mall and Commercial Tower

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SATINDER SINGH BHASIN — Appellant Vs. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ.…

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 12(3) – Time limit for completion of Insolvency Resolution Process – Where the insolvency resolution process of a corporate debtor is pending and has not been completed within the period referred to in the second proviso, such resolution process shall be completed within a period of ninety days from the date of commencement of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2019

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAIPRAKASH ASSOCIATES LTD AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. IDBI BANK LTD. — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ. ) Civil…

You missed