Latest Post

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 165, 166 — Death allegedly caused by murder inside a motor vehicle — Claim for compensation — Requirement of causal link between death and “use” of motor vehicle — Held, mere presence of a motor vehicle in the chain of circumstances leading to death does not attract liability under MVA — Some nexus between the vehicle and the death must be established. Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 — Section 2(25) — “Occupier” — Scope of definition — The MHAD Act defines only “occupier,” which includes any person liable to pay rent, an owner in occupation, a rent-free tenant, a licensee, or one liable to pay damages for use and occupation — Occupancy is not a statutory tenancy dependent on the owner’s will, and even a person in possession without formal rent liability may claim occupancy status for reallotment purposes. Stamp Act, 1899 — Section 26, proviso — Mining lease — Stamp duty on instrument with indeterminate value — Determinant of stamp duty — Where value of subject-matter is indeterminate at execution, proviso to S.26 specifically governs mining leases, directing that estimated royalty or value of share, as estimated by the Collector where State is lessor, suffices for stamp duty purposes — Proviso held not inconsistent with main provision — actual value of mining lease is ascertainable only once mining operations commence Service Law — Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS) — Grade Pay convergence — Effect on promotions within cadre — Convergence of Grade Pay pursuant to Sixth Central Pay Commission does not obliterate separate identity of promotional posts within a cadre — Promotions carry promotional increments, enhanced running-duty allowances and post-specific benefits, remaining financially meaningful notwithstanding constancy of Grade Pay. Multiple FIRs across States cannot be quashed or clubbed under Article 32 where they relate to distinct transactions, victims, and offences despite similar modus operandi. A. Cyber Fraud — Multiple FIRs across States — Clubbing declined — Clubbing/consolidation of FIRs registered in different States was declined where each FIR was lodged by a different complainant induced to part with money on separate occasions, with distinct victims, amounts and transactions, notwithstanding a common bank account and similar modus operandi; clubbing at a nascent investigation stage involving complex cyber-forensic tracing would impede fair investigation and cause hardship to complainants.
Service Matters

Army Act, 1950 – Sections 3, 3(i), 8 and 9 – Disability pension- There has to be a relevant and reasonable causal connection, howsoever remote, between the incident resulting in such disability/death and military service for it to be attributable. This conditionality applies even when a person is posted and leave; notwithstanding both being considered as ‘duty’.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. DHARAMBIR SINGH — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta, JJ.…

Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 – Sections 10(3)(a)(iii) and 14(1)(b) – Bonafide requirement – Nature of the requirement as stated by the landlord would be for running a garment shop .Mere non ­production of the approved plan or the documents to indicate financial capacity at this juncture cannot be held fatal in the instant facts

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH D. SASI KUMAR — Appellant Vs. SOUNDARARAJAN — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal Nos. 7546-7547 of…

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 34, 34(2), 34(5) and 34(6) – Permission to adduce evidence – The proceedings under Section 34 of the Act are summary proceedings and not a regular suit. When the order of the District Judge dismissing the application filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 does not suffer from perversity, the High Court, HC cannot interfere .

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. CANARA NIDHI LIMITED — Appellant Vs. M. SHASHIKALA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. ) Civil…

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 – Section 14 – Possession of secured asset – CJM is competent to process the request of the secured creditor to take possession of the secured asset under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, INDIAN BANK — Appellant Vs. D. VISALAKSHI AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ. )…

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 227 – Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 – Sections 15(1) and 15(7) – Payment of rent Amount of rent payable for the demised premises may be a factor which cannot be brushed aside, but the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, do not suggest any negligence, defiance or contumacious non ­payment of the amount payable to the landlord to warrant the taking of that “exceptional step” which is bound to render the tenant defenceless in his contest against the respondents­landlord.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DINA NATH (D ) BY LRS AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SUBHASH CHAND SAINI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Arun Mishra, M.R.…

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 102 – Power of police officer to seize certain property – ‘any property’ used in sub-section (1) of Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not include immovable property. The power of seizure in Section 102 has to be limited to movable property – The phrase ‘any property’ in Section 102 will only cover moveable property and not immovable property.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH NEVADA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS DIRECTORS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Ranjan Gogoi, CJI., Deepak…

Service Matters

Once, the respondent chose not to controvert the allegations made against him in the show cause notice and pursued the matter with the competent authority only for taking a lenient view, he cannot be permitted to resile from that position. It would result in allowing the respondent to approbate and reprobate.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. LT. COL. KULDEEP YADAV — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Ajay Rastogi, JJ. )…

You missed