Latest Post

Environmental Law — Environmental Clearance (EC) — Ex-post facto EC — The Supreme Court has held that the concept of ex-post facto Environmental Clearance is alien to Indian environmental jurisprudence and struck down notifications allowing it — However, in cases where industries were established based on Consent to Establish (CTE) and Consent to Operate (CTO) granted by Pollution Control Boards (PCBs) which were themselves unaware of the prior EC requirement, and the industries have subsequently applied for EC, the Court may allow them to operate while the EC process is pending, to avoid economic and livelihood impacts if no actual pollution is caused or norms are otherwise met. Land Revenue Records — Evidentiary Value for Title — Revenue records like Faisal Patti, Vasool Baqi, and Pahanies are primarily for fiscal purposes and do not confer title or ownership — Mutation entries do not create or extinguish title and have no presumptive value regarding ownership — Such records cannot be the sole basis for declaring title, especially when the primary document of title (patta) is not produced. Recruitment Process — Advertisement and Selection — While filling vacancies, State instrumentalities must adhere to comparative merit and avoid discrimination — A candidate in a select list does not gain an indefeasible right to appointment without specific rules to that effect. Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 28 — Rescission of contract for failure to pay purchase money within time limit prescribed by decree — Court’s discretion to extend time or rescind — Dismissal of appeal for non-prosecution does not result in merger of trial court decree — Permitting deposit of balance amount does not extinguish judgment-debtor’s right to seek rescission — Court can consider extending time to balance equities and compensate judgment-debtor for delay, but not automatically — Judgment-debtor’s conduct showing willful negligence is a factor for rescission. Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 — Section 45 — Bar of jurisdiction of civil courts — This section bars civil courts from entertaining suits or proceedings related to matters within the jurisdiction of authorities, Adjudicating Authorities, or the Appellate Tribunal under the Act — However, the question of whether a suit falls under this bar is itself a matter that can be considered in the context of Order 7 Rule 11 or Order XIV Rule 2.

Deceased had graduated in Business Administration from U.K. where as a student, he was also doing part-time job earning an amount of 1,008 pounds (Rs. 80,000/-) p.m.–When the accident took place in India he was not working–Tribunal considering that he was still a student assessed his monthly income only at Rs. 18,000/- on notional basis–Fair amount of compensation should have been calculated 25,000/- p.m. being about 1/3rd of amount which he was receiving in U.K.–Appeal by insurance company dismissed and that of appellant allowed

2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 337 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma Civil Appeal No. 3482 of 2009…

Lynching—Mob Violence—The person/persons who has/have initiated, promoted, instigated or any way caused to occur any act of violence against cultural programmes or which results in loss of life or damage to public or private property either directly or indirectly, shall be made liable to compensate the victims of such violence

2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 2593 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1616 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Chief Justice DipakMisra Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr.…

Right to Information–Judicial Order–Under the RTI Act an applicant cannot ask for any information as to why opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed, especially in matters pertaining to judicial decisions–A judge is not bound to explain later on for what reasons he had come to such a conclusion.

2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC)  311 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan Special Leave Petition (Civil)…

Limitation Act, 1963, Art. 58–Limitation–Cause of action–Mere existence of a wrong entry in the revenue records does not, in law, give rise to a cause of action within the meaning of Article 58 of the Act. — Cause of action for the purposes of Article 58 of the Act accrues only when the right asserted in the suit is infringed or there is atleast a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe that right–Therefore, the mere existence of an adverse entry into the revenue record cannot give rise to cause of action.

2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 307 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam Civil Appeal No.5339 of 2002 Daya…

You missed