Latest Post

Allotment of Land — Irregularity — Public Interest Litigation — Demolition vs. Regularisation — The court must balance the wrong committed with the current reality and socio-economic consequences — Demolition of a fully operational commercial complex, involving significant investment, employment, and tax revenue, may not serve public interest if financial restitution is possible. All India Service (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 — Rule 16(2A) — Voluntary Retirement — Acceptance by Central Government — Central Government has the ultimate authority to accept or reject a Voluntary Retirement (VRS) notice — It is not bound by the State Government’s recommendation and must apply its mind to all relevant facts and circumstances — This power is not unconstrained and is guided by DoPT Guidelines, requiring consideration of pending or contemplated disciplinary proceedings that could lead to a major penalty — The Central Government can accept a VRS request even if a major penalty is possible, but this requires a conscious and well-informed decision — Appeals allowed, order of Central Government rejecting VRS set aside, and matter remitted for fresh consideration. Environment Law — Illegal Sand Mining — Supreme Court’s directions for States to file compliance affidavits — Court expresses displeasure at Rajasthan’s lacklustre response and apathy in implementing directions affecting National Chambal Sanctuary — Rajasthan directed to ensure personal presence of senior officers with compliance reports — Court also directs Madhya Pradesh to address issue of unregistered vehicles. Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1991 — Temporary status casual labourer — Entitlement to pensionary benefits — Held, entitled even in the absence of formal regularisation, provided eligibility criteria under Rule 10(1-B) of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, are fulfilled. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — Sections 8, 10, 19 — Property of a male Hindu dying intestate — Devolution of property — Heirs taking property as tenants-in-common and not joint tenants — Each heir having a definite and separate share — No presumption of coparcenary property.—-Section 8 — Property inherited by a son from his father — Son takes the property in his individual capacity and not as karta of his own Hindu Undivided Family — Descendants of the heir do not acquire rights in such property by birth.

Transposing of defendants as plaintiffs—Basic requirement for exercise of powers under Order 23 Rule 1-A CPC would be to examine if the plaintiff is seeking to withdraw or to abandon his claim and the defendant seeking transposition is having an interest in the subject-matter of the suit and thereby, a substantial question to be adjudicated against the other defendant

2019(2) Law Herald (SC) 1083 : 2019 LawHerald.Org 823 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari Civil Appeal No.…

Dying Declaration—Need for Corroboration—Where the victim was administered sedative as pain killers before making the statement, the victim being in state of delusion cannot be ruled out—In such circumstance there is need for corroborative evidence for relying upon dying declaration.

2019(2) Law Herald (SC) 1157 : 2019 LawHerald.Org 830 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. A. Bobde Honble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta Criminal Appeal Nos.…

Benami Transactions—Financial Assistance—Merely because some financial assistance has been given by the father to the sons to purchase the properties, the transactions cannot be said to benami in nature. Benami Transactions—Intention of the person who contributed the purchase money is determinative of the nature of transaction–Source of money had never been the sole consideration—It is merely one of the relevant considerations but not determinative in character

2019(2) Law Herald (SC) 1163 : 2019 LawHerald.Org 831 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. R. Shah Civil Appeal…

Dishonour of Cheque—Friendly Loan—Failure of complainant to prove the source of funds for advancing loan to accused cannot be a ground rebutting the presumption u/s 139 N.I. and because of that burden of proof on accused to prove probable defence does not get shifted on complainant. Dishonour of Cheque—Rebuttable Presumption—By mere denial or mere creation of doubt the presumption u/s 139 N.I. act cannot be held to have been rebutted by the accused

2019(2) Law Herald (SC) 1029 : 2019 LawHerald.Org 784 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari Criminal Appeal No.…

Un­ necessary Amendment—Amendment was sought belatedly when suit was fixed for final arguments—Further, suit could still be decided even without there being any necessity to seek any amendment in the plaint—Application for amendment of plaint held to be rightly dismissed by Trial Court.   

2019(2) Law Herald (SC) 1027 : 2019 LawHerald.Org 838 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre  Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari Civil Appeal No.…

Agreement to Sell—Specific Performance—Plaintiff has to aver and prove his readiness and willingness—Merely because defendant has not taken any objection in their written statement in this regard is of no consequence Agreement to Sell—Specific Performance—Pleadings of plaintiff were essentially directed towards the existence and validity of the alleged agreement and the surrounding dealings of the parties; but is lacking in those material assertions on readiness and willingness on his part–Decree of sped fie performance declined. Second Appeal—Substantial Question of law—It cannot be laid down as a matter of rule that irrespective of the question/s formulated, hearing of the second appeal is open for any other substantial question of law, even if not formulated earlier

2019(2) Law Herald (SC) 1017 : 2019 LawHerald.Org 783 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari Civil Appeal No.…

You missed