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)

Accident—Claim Petition—Finding of fact—Eye witnesses examined by the claimants were neither discarded as untruthful nor the High Court has found any contradiction in their version—Therefore, High court was wrong in reversing the finding of facts recorded by the tribunal by solely relying on the version of interested witness examined by the appellants in defence—Impugned order of High Court set aside.

2018(3) Law Herald (SC) 1859 :2018 LawHerald.Org 1264 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Chief Justice Dipak Misra Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar Civil Appeal No. 8411…

Murder—Modification of charge—Acquittal—Sudden Fight—After exchange of heated words accused used the axe and gave blow on head of deceased causing multiple injuries—Deceased survived for one month after the attack—Appellant therefore cannot be said to have taken undue advantage of the same— Head injury caused was sufficient in the ordinary cause of the nature to cause death—Accused would fall under exception 4 to S.300 IPC— Conviction u/s 302 IPC modified to be under S.304 Part I IPC.

2018(3) Law Herald (SC) 1846   :2018 LawHerald.Org 1261 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogol Hon’ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi Criminal Appeal Nos. 2301-2302 of…

You missed