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.

Adverse possession–Encroachers, unauthorised occupants or land grabbers–Where an encroacher, illegal occupant or land grabber of public property raises a plea that he has perfected title by adverse possession, the Court is duty bound to act with greater seriousness, care and circumspection–Any laxity in this regard may result in destruction of right/title of the State to immovable property and give upper hand to the encroachers, unauthorised occupants or land grabbers.     

2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 630 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly Civil Appeal No. 1569 of…

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…

You missed