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.

Agreement to Sell–Mere fixation of time within which contract is to be performed does not make the stipulation as to the time as essence of contract. Agreement to Sell–Alternate plea of refund–In all suits for specific performance, plaintiff is entitled to seek alternative relief in the event the decree of specific performance cannot be granted for any reason.

2008(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 675 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam Civil Appeal No. 647 of 2008…

Jurisdiction of Tribunal-The main question involved in the suit was whether the suit land is a Wakf property or not- Plaintiff says that it is a Wakf property whereas the defendants say that it is not the Wakf property but it is their self- property–This question, can be decided only by the Tribunal and not by the Civil Court.

  (2017) 175 AIC 125 : (2017) AIR(SCW) 2155 : (2017) AIR(SC) 2155 : (2017) 123 ALR 784 : (2017) 4 AndhLD 106 : (2017) 2 ARC 226 : (2017)…

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439–Rape–Kidnapping–Bail–Charge sheet was filed against appellant and four other persons-Case against appellant is almost similar to that of o the r co-accused who have been enlarged on bail—Appellant has no other criminal antecedents-Bail granted-Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.376 & S.366.

(2017) 100 ACrC 979 : (2017) 177 AIC 68 : (2017) 2 AICLR 803 : (2017) AIR(SCW) 2474 : (2017) AIR(SC) 2474 : (2017) ALLMR(Cri) 2220 : (2017) CriLR 457…

You missed