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)

Criminal Breach of trust by Public Servant—Reduction in Sentence—Embezzlement of 85 litres of diesel from depot of State Transport by its bus driver—Appellant is now in his late sixties and no longer in service—He is also ailing and is not involved in any other criminal activity—Sentence reduced to period already undergone with increment in fine

2019(1) Law Herald (SC)   204 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 2056 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Indu Malhotra Criminal Appeal No.…

Previous Bad Character—Use of previous bad character evidence is prohibited except when the convict himself chooses to lead evidence of his good character. Murder—Death Sentence—Life Imprisonment—The criminal, however ruthless he might be, is nevertheless a human being and is entitled to a life of dignity notwithstanding his crime. Murder—Death Sentence—Where the social re-integration of the convict may not be possible, the option of a long duration of imprisonment is permissible. DNA Test—Failure to produce available DNA evidence leads to an adverse presumption against the prosecution and in favour of appellant for the purpose of sentence only.

2019(1) Law Herald (SC) 172 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 2051 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer Hon’ble Mr.…

High Court dismissed the revision by observing that even though Session Court and High Court have concurrent revisionary jurisdiction but there was no special circumstance to bypass the forum of Session Judge—Appeal against this order—Held; keeping in view the matter is already pending for 16 years impugned order of High Court set aside-High Court to hear the revision on merits-Question of law left open

2019(1) Law Herald (SC) 637 : 2019 LawHerald.Org 614 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana Criminal Appeal No.…

Insurance—Where due to deficiency in service, the complainant has suffered loss of benefits of an escalation in his investment value than mere direction for refund of payment along with interest will not provide sufficient redressal of his grievance—Heavy Compensation amount over and above such amount should be awarded

2019(1) Law Herald (SC) 633 : 2019 LawHerald.Org 6O9 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hetnant Gupta Civil Appeal…

Agreement to Sell—Concurrent findings of fact—The issue of readiness and willingness is the most important issue for considering the grant of specific performance of the contract and the same having been held (in favour or against the plaintiff) by the Courts below on appreciation of evidence; is binding even on Supreme Court

2019(1) Law Herald (SC) 630 : 2019 LawHerald.Org 608 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre Hon’ble Ms. Justice Indu Malhotra Civil Appeal No.…

You missed