Latest Post

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. Environment Law — Environmental Clearance — Prior clearance — Mandatory character — Prior environmental clearance under EIA Notification, 2006 is mandatory, being founded on the precautionary principle and couched in imperative terms — Word “prior” and the graded four-stage screening, scoping, public consultation and appraisal process render an anterior assessment the sine qua non of the clearance regime — Decriminalisation of contraventions under Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023 does not alter this mandatory character.

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.354 and S.448–Outraging modesty of woman-­Reduction in Sentence—Compounding of Offence—House Trespass-Incident is about 10 years old-Submission by complainant that with passage of time, the grudges amongst each other have vanished away and have taken a shape of friendship-Sentence reduced to period already undergone which was more than minimum prescribed sentence-­Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.320

2019(1) Law Herald (SC) 618 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 2138 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta Criminal Appeal No(s). 1415…

Service Matters

Service Law–Disability–Judicial Officer-Prescription of disability to the extent of 40% -50% for recruitment for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) is valid and it does not contravene any of the provisions of the Act, 1995 or any other statutory provision—Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.        

2019(1) Law Herald (SC) 351 : 2019 LawHerald.Org 547 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Honble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph Civil Appeal No, 83…

Arbitration—Objections—Condonation of Delay—Delay beyond prescribed period of three months and further period of 30 days on satisfaction of court from date of passing award cannot be condoned. Arbitration—Objections—Limitation—Section 14 of Limitation Act is applicable to an application under S.34 of 1996 Act.

2019(1) Law Herald (SC) 17 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1955 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran Civil Appeal No.…

Constitution of India, 1950, Art.227–Writ of Habeas Corpus-Custody of Child–The Central aspect to be considered by the Court is whether the custody of child can be said to be unlawful or illegal and whether the welfare of child requires that the present custody should be changed and the child should be left in the care and custody of somebody else, depending on which appropriate directions can be passed

2019(1) Law Herald (SC) 575 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 2136 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud Criminal Appeal Nos.…

You missed