Latest Post

the reasoning in the impugned judgment that the non-obstante clause would not in any manner dilute or override the employer’s obligation to deposit the amounts retained by it or deducted by it from the employee’s income, unless the condition that it is deposited on or before the due date, is correct and justified. The non-obstante clause has to be understood in the context of the entire provision of Section 43B which is to ensure timely payment before the returns are filed, of certain liabilities which are to be borne by the assessee in the form of tax, interest payment and other statutory liability. I Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 438 — Anticipatory Bail — Grant of — Grounds for — High Court granted anticipatory bail based on reasons that one co-owner was abroad during agreement execution, agreement was only notarized and not registered, part payment received, and complainant sought refund indicating civil dispute — Supreme Court found these reasons to be peripheral and not bearing direct nexus to parameters governing anticipatory bail — Seriousness of allegations, criminal antecedents, and requirements of investigation in economic offence were overlooked by High Court. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) — Sections 138 and 141 — Quashing of criminal proceedings — Vicarious liability of office bearers — For a person other than the drawer or signatory of a dishonoured cheque to be prosecuted under Section 141 of the NI Act, it must be specifically averred in the complaint that such person was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company or society at the time the offence was committed. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 34 and 37 — Scope of powers of Court to set aside or modify arbitral award — Modification of award is a limited power compared to annulment, aimed at achieving more just outcomes and avoiding hardship and delay, especially in India where litigation takes years — Appellate jurisdiction under Section 37 is coterminous with and as broad as jurisdiction under Section 34. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 6 Rule 7 — Pleadings should not raise new claims or inconsistent allegations — A defendant cannot retract their initial stand taken in the written statement and introduce a completely new and contradictory case, especially after issues have been framed and the trial has commenced.

Accident—Personal Expenses—Where the family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third, as contribution to the family will be taken as two-third. Accident—Just Compensation—More than claimed—Court is duty bound and entitled to award “just compensation”, irrespective of whether any plea in that behalf was raised by the claimant or not. Accident—Filial Consortium—It is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child—An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. Accident—Interest on Compensation—Deceased was aged 24 years and his income assessed as that of unskilled worker—Compensation awarded with 12% interest p.a. from date of filing claim petition.

2018(3) Law Herald (SC) 2410 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1582 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. F. Nariman Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Indu Malhotra Civil Appeal No.…

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