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)

Schedule Caste—Central and State Government directed to strictly enforce the provisions of SCST Act. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989-Non implementation of provisions—There has been a failure on the part of the concerned authorities in complying with the provisions of the Act and Rules

2017(1) Law Herald (SC) 193 : 2016 LawHerald.Org 2528 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Chief Justice T.S. Thakur The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. D. Y.…

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 & S.149–Murder–Unlawful Assembly- Common ; Object-After having held that the appellants formed an unlawful assembly carrying dangerous weapons with the common object to resorting to violence (as described in the charge) it was not open to the High Court to acquit some of the members

2017(1) Law Herald (SC) 547 : 2017 LawHerald.Org 677 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud Criminal…

Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976, S.6(ii)-Surplus Area-Right of Legal heirs–Original owner of land died intestate in 1947 leaving behind a widow, two sons and two daughters-Competent authority declared surplus land keeping in view that sons of owner did not contested the said proceedings

2017(1) Law Herald (SC) 524 : 2017 LawHerald.Org 674 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prafulla C. Pant…

You missed