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)

Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 300-A & 136–Pension–Freedom Fighters  Pension–Grant of Freedom Fighters’ pension– Respondent’s case had been recommended by two Collectors and the District Level Screening Committee–State Government has not disputed the respondent’s claim on facts–High Court granted pension–SC disinclined to interfere -Appeal by State by dismissed.            

2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 628 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi The Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur Civil Appeal No. 4400 of…

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.304-B~Dowry Death-Soon before Death- What must be borne in mind is that the word “soon” does not mean “immediate”–A fair and pragmatic construction keeping in mind the great social evil that has led to the enactment of Section 304-B IPC would make it clear that the expression is a relative expression—Time-lags may differ from case to case—All that is necessary is that the demand for dowry should not be stale but should be the continuing cause for the death of the married woman under Section 304-B. 

2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 2735 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1607 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.M.…

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302–Murder–Motive–Son killed his father–Son nursed grudge against his father because of his share in the agricultural land—Motive to kill stood established—Conviction upheld.

2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 2724 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1605 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before                            Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogol                     Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha Hon’ble Mr.…

Right to Information—Reason for Information—Even private documents submitted to public authorities may, under certain situations, form part of public record. RERA— Layout Plans—Directions issued to display such sanction plan/ layout plans at the construction site also We, thus, dismiss the appeals with costs quantified at Rs.2.50 lakhs (Rupees two lakhs & fifty thousand), payable by the appellant to respondent No.3 (though hardly the actual expenses!)

2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 2701 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1603 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Haul Civil Appeal Nos.…

Murder–Death sentence–Murder of five innocent persons committed for ransom– Accused were not named in the FIR–FIR was lodged against unknown persons–Name of the appellants came into light during investigation–Appellants in prison for the last 14 years–Death sentence commuted  into that of life imprisonment–Despite the nature of the crime, death penalty can be substituted with life sentence. Test Identification Parade–Merely because there was delay, the outcome of the identification parade cannot be thrown out if the same was properly done after following the procedure

Mulla v. State of U.P. 2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 609 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam The Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu Criminal…

Appellant made reference before Labour Court–Labour Court concluded that the workman worked with the Department for a period of more than 240 days preceding the date of termination, thus directed reinstatement–High Court set aside the award of the Labour Court–Appeal–Appellant worked for 3 years without break during his service tenure–No reason given of his termination–Termination in contravention of the provisions of Section 25-F–High Court ought not to have interfered with the factual finding rendered by the Labour Court–Impugned order of the High Court set aside and that of the Labour Court restored. 

2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 592 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam The Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu Civil Appeal No. 229 of 2010…

You missed