Latest Post

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Claim Petition for death of bachelor — Selection of Multiplier — Multiplier to be determined based on age of deceased and not age of dependents/parents — Deceased was 33 years old at the time of accident — Correct multiplier applicable according to standardized matrix in Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi is 16 — Argument of insurer that multiplier should correspond to age of parents rejected — MACT and High Court rightly applied multiplier of 16. 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.

Stamp Act, 1899 — Schedule 1-B, Article 40 & 57 — “Security Bond cum Mortgage Deed” — Stamp Duty — “Security Bond or Mortgage Deed” — Instrument’s substance, not nomenclature, determines stamp duty — Court must ascertain true legal character of instrument by examining operative recitals and clauses — Definition of Mortgage Deed (Section 2(17)) — Instrument transferring right over specified property to secure performance of engagement is a mortgage deed — Article 57 (second limb — executed by a surety to secure the due performance of a contract) is restricted to cases where a distinct surety executes a bond to secure the obligations of another; it does not apply when the principal debtor itself executes the deed mortgaging its own property — Principal debtor executing a deed mortgaging its own property is a mortgage deed attracting Article 40.

2025 INSC 1207 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S GODWIN CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER, MEERUT DIVISION & ANR. ( Before : Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.…

Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 260A — Appeals to High Court — Charitable Purpose Registration — High Court dismissed revenue’s appeals, stating issues were covered by earlier decisions, but failed to examine facts against the law. Supreme Court found impugned orders lacked factual elaboration and remanded for reconsideration in light of settled law by a larger bench decision.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) LUCKNOW Vs. M/S. KHURJA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ( Before : Manoj Misra and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Service Matters

Recruitment Regulations — Manager (E-3) — Qualifications — Prescribed qualifications for Manager (E-3) include First Class MBA/B.Tech./B.E. or professional degree with relevant experience. For Manager (A.T.C.), specific engineering degrees in Electronics/Tele-communications/Radio Engineering/Electrical with specialization in Electronics or M.Sc. with specific specializations were required.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VIVEK YADAV Vs. AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA CHAIRMAN AND ANOTHER ( Before : Manoj Misra and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 — Section 9(2)(g) — Input Tax Credit (ITC) — Bona fide purchaser dealer paying tax to registered seller dealer — Seller dealer defaulting in depositing tax with government — High Court’s interpretation of Section 9(2)(g) — Court reading down the provision to protect bona fide purchasers — Department’s remedy against defaulting seller, not denial of ITC to purchaser — collusion exception remains.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE COMMISSIONER TRADE AND TAX DELHI Vs. M/S SHANTI KIRAN INDIA (P) LTD. ( Before : Manoj Misra and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. )…

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 233(2) — Appointment of District Judges — Eligibility for in-service candidates — Clause (2) not prescribing qualifications for those already in judicial service — Such candidates not barred from direct recruitment — Interpretation to the contrary renders first part of Clause (2) redundant.

2025 INSC 1208 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 5 JUDGES BENCH REJANISH K.V. Vs. K. DEEPA AND OTHERS ( Before : B.R. Gavai, CJI, Aravind Kumar, Satish Chandra Sharma and K.…

Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 — Section 4(iii)(c)(I) — Age-restriction for intending couples — Retrospective application — Intending couples who commenced surrogacy procedures (including embryo creation and freezing) before the Act’s commencement date (25.01.2022) are not subject to the age-restrictions under Section 4(iii)(c)(I). The Act, unless expressly or by necessary implication made retrospective, is presumed to be prospective. The commencement of freezing embryos signifies a vested right and a crystallized intention, preventing subsequent age-bar imposition from frustrating the process.

2025 INSC 1209 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VIJAYA KUMARI S AND ANOTHER Vs. UNION OF INDIA ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. ) Writ Petition…

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138 and 141 — Dishonour of Cheque — Complaint against Chairman/Trustee of a Trust without impleading the Trust as an accused — Maintainability — Held, a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act is maintainable against a Trustee who has signed the cheque on behalf of the Trust, even if the Trust itself is not made an accused — The Trust does not possess independent legal status to sue or be sued.

2025 INSC 1210 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANKAR PADAM THAPA Vs. VIJAYKUMAR DINESHCHANDRA AGARWAL ( Before : Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No…..of…

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 — Section 7-A — Claim of juvenility can be raised at any stage, even after final disposal of the case. If found to be a juvenile, the court shall forward the person to the Board, and any sentence passed shall be deemed to have no effect — This provision applies retrospectively.

2025 INSC 1211 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HANSRAJ Vs. STATE OF U.P. ( Before : Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih, JJ. ) Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 340…

Education Law — Recruitment Rules — Applicability of — Selection process initiated under Assam Government Aided Junior College Management Rules, 2001 — Advertisement did not stipulate age limit — Government condoned appellant’s overage — Subsequent approval of appointment — High Court relying on Assam Secondary Education (Provincialisation) Service Rules, 2003, which prescribed age limits, set aside appointment — Court held that applying 2003 Rules retrospectively to an aided institution’s recruitment process initiated under 2001 Rules was illegal, especially when post-provincialisation rules were not made retrospective.

2025 INSC 1156 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JYOTSNA DEVI Vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS ( Before : Ahsanuddin Amanullah and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

You missed