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.

Companies Act, 1956 – Sections 433, 434, 433(e) and 434(1)(c) – Winding up Petition – Trigger of limitation – A winding up proceeding is a proceeding ‘in rem’ and not a recovery proceeding, the trigger of limitation, so far as the winding up petition is concerned, would be the date of default.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH JIGNESH SHAH AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : R.F. Nariman, R. Subhash Reddy and Surya…

It is settled law that the fundamental right under Article 30 cannot be waived.If school is a minority institution, Rule 28 of the Rules for Management of Recognized Non-Government Institutions (Aided and Unaided) 1969, cannot possibly apply as there would be a serious infraction of the right of school to administer the institution with teachers of its choice.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH CHANDANA DAS (MALAKAR) — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R.F. Nariman, R. Subhash Reddy and…

Wakfs Act, 1954 – Section 56 – Waqfs Act, 1995 – Sections 63 and 83(9) – Succession Act, 1925 – Section 25 – Appointment of mutawalli . The High Court’s finding that the waqif intended that the mutawalli-ship should devolve upon Kammu Mia’s descendants only after the waqif’s direct lineal descendants are exhausted is patently incorrect in as much as the waqf deed does not contain any such stipulation.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MD. ABRAR — Appellant Vs. MEGHALAYA BOARD OF WAKF AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Ajay Rastogi,…

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 22 – Mutawalliship – The word “putro” means son and grandson. In reading and interpreting the term “putro poutradi krome”, the meaning of the individual words must also be considered and accounted for. A combined reading of these terms lends support to the view that “putro poutradi krome” means son and grandson, generation after generation, and therefore does not include any female descendants

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH  SYEDA NAZIRA KHATOON (D) BY LR. — Appellant Vs. SYED ZAHIRUDDIN AHMED BAGHDADI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, Mohan M.…

Thus, there can be no manner of dispute that a plaintiff can claim title to the property based on adverse possession – Plea of adverse possession can be used both as an offence and as a defence i.e. both as sword and as a shield. Appeal allowed.Ravinder Kaur Grewal & Ors. v. Manjit Kaur & Ors. Followed

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KRISHNAMURTHY S. SETLUR (D) BY LRS. — Appellant Vs. O. V. NARASIMHA SETTY (D) BY LRS. — Respondent ( Before : Deepak Gupta and…

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 20(2)(c) – Suit for specific performance – Agreement to sell – To take benefit of clause (c) of sub­section (2) of Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, the defendant in a suit for specific performance must show that he entered into the contract under the circumstances which though rendering the contract voidable, make it inequitable

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LEELADHAR (D) THR. LRS. — Appellant Vs. VIJAY KUMAR (D) THR. LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose,…

Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 – Section 27(1) – Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 – Sections 21 and 48-A – Grant of occupancy rights – Cultivatory possession – Will is not hit by the embargo, whether that contained in Section 27(1) of the Act of 1948 or in Section 21 of the Act of 1961.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH  KANNA TIMMA KANAJI MADIWAL (D) THROUGH LRS. — Appellant Vs. RAMACHANDRA TIMMAYA HEGDE (D) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M.…

You missed