Latest Post

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Claim Petition for death of bachelor — Selection of Multiplier — Multiplier to be determined based on age of deceased and not age of dependents/parents — Deceased was 33 years old at the time of accident — Correct multiplier applicable according to standardized matrix in Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi is 16 — Argument of insurer that multiplier should correspond to age of parents rejected — MACT and High Court rightly applied multiplier of 16. Legal Representatives Can Claim Motor Accident Compensation Even Without Financial Dependency On Deceased Execution Of Unregistered Agreement To Sell Does Not Terminate Subsisting Landlord-Tenant Relationship Nor Entitle Tenant To Section 53A TP Act Protection A. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Section 111(e) & (f) — Landlord and Tenant — Determination of lease by express or implied surrender — Execution of agreement to sell by landlord in favour of tenant — Effect on jural relationship — Held, mere execution of an agreement to sell between landlord and tenant does not ipso facto determine the subsisting tenancy — Tenancy is determined only when terms of agreement or unequivocal conduct of parties disclose express or implied surrender — Where agreement to sell contained clause for cancellation and restoration of possession in case loan was not sanctioned, existing possession was referable to tenancy and not to agreement to sell — Landlord-tenant relationship continued to subsist. Appellate Courts Should Not Remand Cases Under Order 41 Rule 23 CPC As A Matter Of Course When Sufficient Evidence Is Available On Record. A. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 41 Rules 23 and 24 — Power of Appellate Court to remand — Remand of case to Trial Court for framing of additional issues and fresh evidence — Permissibility — High Court remitted suit regarding one item of property for framing issues on whether sale deed was sham, limitation, and possession — Held, remand is not to be adopted as a matter of ordinary course and reflects incorrect exercise of discretion when sufficient evidence is available on record — Issues already framed by Trial Court were comprehensive enough to cover core disputes — Appellate Court is fully empowered to decide issues on merits or admit additional evidence if warranted, rather than remitting matter to cause unnecessary delay — Remand set aside and appeals restored to High Court for fresh disposal on merits. Extended Period Of Limitation Under Proviso To Section 11A, Central Excise Act Cannot Be Invoked When Facts Are Known To Department Without Wilful Suppression A. Central Excise Act, 1944 — Section 35L — Maintainability of appeal before Supreme Court — Preliminary objection raised by Department that appeal does not come under Section 35L as issue had no relation to rate of duty or valuation — Held, issue raised regarding extended period of limitation on ground of non-inclusion of certain costs in assessable value has an inextricable link with valuation of goods for purposes of assessment — Issue raised in show cause notice fundamentally dealt with valuation of goods — Supreme Court declined to relegate matter to High Court after almost a decade of pendency — Preliminary objection rejected.

Consumer—Revision petition against an order passed by State Commission in execution proceedings before National Commission is not maintainable Execution Petition—Execution proceedings even though they are proceedings in a suit, but cannot be considered to be a continuation of the original suit

2019(2) Law Herald (SC) 1584 : 2019 LawHerald.Org 1016 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Honlrie Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Indu Malhotra Civil Appeal No.…

Service Matters

Advocates—An advocate cannot work merely as mouth piece of his client while making presentation before the Court—He must tell the Court the correct position of law The College being affiliated to the University was bound by the provisions of the Act with its attendant consequences for noncompliance-Order of termination, passed without approval of Vice chancellor in violation of statutory rules, set aside.

2019(2) Law Herald (SC) 1578 : 2019 LawHerald.Org 1015 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha Civil Appeal No(s). 4794…

Service Matters

Held; the basis on which the matter was considered by the Division Bench was incorrect and secondly, the matter was also not considered from the perspective of relevant governing Regulations-The orders of sanction in all these three matters highlight the acts of commission and omission on part of the concerned Respondents as a result of which there was wrongful loss to the State and public interest was compromised

2019(2) Law Herald (SC) 1548 : 2019 LawHerald.Org 1009 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Indu Malhotra Civil Appeal No.…

You missed