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)
Service Matters

Services of respondent teachers terminated on the ground that they had absented from duties without informing the Management–Management had not followed proper procedure in terminating services of respondents–Reason for termination of services was not that they were unqualified or untrained teachers but that they had absented from duties–Assuming that they had absented from duties even then admittedly procedure laid down under Clause 13 and 18 of Schedule ‘F’ of the Bombay Primary Education Rules, 1949 had to be followed before terminating their services–Tribunal was justified in ordering reinstatement with full salary and allowances

Shantiniketan Hindi Primary School  v. Pal Hariram Ramavtar 2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 686 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran The Hon’ble Mr. Justice…

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, S. 4–Penal Code, 1860, S. 498-A and 304-B–Evidence Act, 1872, S. 113-B–Dowry Death–Cruelty–Demand of Dowry–Essential ingredients :- (i) Death is caused in unnatural circumstances. (ii) Death must have occurred within seven years of the marriage of the deceased. (iii) It needs to be shown that soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry.

2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC)  681 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam The Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu Criminal Appeal No. 160 Of 2006…

Service Matters

Removal  from service–Non-supply of relevant documents–Copies of the documents which formed the foundation of the charge sheet against the respondents have been denied to the respondent on the lame excuse–proceedings vitiated been conducted in complete violation of principles natural justice.

2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC)  671 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar Civil Appeal No. 254 of…

Service Matters

Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 311–Delhi School Education Act, 1973, S. 8 &  12–Vires of–Unaided minority institution–Section 8(1), (3), (4) and (5) of the Act do not violate the right of the minorities to establish and administer their educational Institutions–However, Section 8(2) interferes with the said right of the minorities and is, therefore, inapplicable to private recognized aided/unaided minority educational institutions

2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC)  661 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan Civil Appeal No. 5508 of…

Service Matters

Constitution of India, 1950, Art.  16–Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970, Rule 10–Appointment–District Judge in Delhi–In case the statutory rules prescribe a particular mode of selection, it has to be given strict adherence accordingly–In case, no procedure is prescribed by the rules and there is no other impediment in law, the competent authority while laying down the norms for selection may prescribe for the tests and further specify the minimum Bench Marks for written test as well as for viva-voce.                                               

2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 656 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Verma The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr.…

Compensation–Disbursement of compensation–Four problems frequently faced in motor accident claim cases under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – First problem relates to a section of motor accident victims who are doubly unfortunate – first in getting involved in an accident, and second, in not getting any compensation– Second problem relates to the widespread practice of using goods vehicles for passenger traffic. 3.Third problem relates to the procedural delays in adjudication/settlement of claims by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals. 4.Full compensation amount does not reach and benefit the victims and their families, particularly those who are uneducated, ignorant, or not worldly-wise.

2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 647 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Mukundakam Sharma The Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.S.…

Adverse possession–Encroachers, unauthorised occupants or land grabbers–Where an encroacher, illegal occupant or land grabber of public property raises a plea that he has perfected title by adverse possession, the Court is duty bound to act with greater seriousness, care and circumspection–Any laxity in this regard may result in destruction of right/title of the State to immovable property and give upper hand to the encroachers, unauthorised occupants or land grabbers.     

2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 630 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly Civil Appeal No. 1569 of…

You missed