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)

Summons—Revision under S 397(2) Cr PC against order of issue of process is maintainable Cognizance of Offence—While taking cognizance of an offence under Section 190 (1) (b) CrPC, the Magistrate does not has to record reasons for its satisfaction of sufficient grounds for issuance of summons

2019(1) Law Herald (SC) 511 : 2019 LawHerald.Org 598 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Indira Banerjee Hon’ble Mrs. Justice R. Baumathi Criminal Appeal No. 224…

Rape–Medical certificate granted by the Doctor suggests that the Hymen was torn at 6’O clock position and the rugosity was lost–There was no reason for the poor girl to falsely implicate the accused. Rape–Defence cannot take advantage of bad investigation where there is clinching evidence available to the prosecution–Truthful version of the prosecutrix cannot be ignored.

2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 593 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S.Sirpurkar Criminal Appeal No. 222 of 2009 (Arising…

Landlord & Tenant-Eviction-Revision of Rent-Agreed rent which was being paid by the tenant with annual increment decided at the time of creation of tenancy (10%) is not liable to re-determined as per amendment in statutory Act fixing rate of annual increment (7.5%)–Rate of annual increment would be applicable after the commencement of amendment–Tenant cannot unilaterally revise the rent already paid as statutory amendment

2019(1) Law Herald (SC) 493 : 2019 LawHerald.Org 556 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Honble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph Civil Appeal Nos. 12561-12562…

Consumer Protection Act, 1986, S.27–Imposition of Penalty-Appellant was shown as Secretary of the Society during the relevant period—For the default committed by a Credit Society (non return of amount invested alongwith interest as assured) and in absence of any personal liability imposed on the appellant, no order for imprisonment can be ordered for imprisonment of appellant

2019(1) Law Herald (SC) 572 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 2135 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Subhash Reddy Hon’ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit Civil Appeal…

Consumer Protection Act, 1986, S. 12–Medical Negligence-Vegetative State–Child aged two and half years underwent minor survey but thereafter developed respiratory distress and has been reduced to a vegetative state–Forums below had awarded Rs. 10 lakhs as compensation payable jointly by surgeon and the anesthetist-Compensation enhanced further by Rs.7 lakhs

2019(1) Law Herald (SC) 552 : 2019 LawHerald.Org 602 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Dhananjay Y. Chandrachud Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta Civil Appeal…

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.456–Forcible Dispossession-Restoration of Possession—Limitation-Limitation of 30 days filing an application would apply only if the Trial Court had not passed any order in respect of the case property while convicting the accused—No limitation has been provided for the higher courts to make an order for restoration of possession while disposing the proceedings before it. 

2019(1) Law Herald (SC) 535 : 2019 LawHerald.Org 60O IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta Criminal Appeal No. 1104 of 2011 Mahesh Dube v.…

You missed