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)

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302/34 and 201/34 – Murder – Common intention – Conviction – Conviction based solely on evidence of Approver – No material to show that appellant had any common intention to eliminate deceased who was a physically disabled – Only adverse thing against appellant is that he used to associate with accused for smoking Ganja – In absence of common intention convicting appellant with aid of Section 34 IPC cannot be sustained – Appeal allowed.

  (2012) 4 JCC 2745 : (2012) 9 JT 116 : (2012) 9 SCALE 245 : (2012) 9 SCC 249 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA SURESH SAKHARAM NANGARE — Appellant Vs.…

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article – 226 – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section – 4(1), 5-A – Notification – A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published – There was no justification to dispense with the enquiry under Section 5-A and public purpose would have been served by allowing the claimants to submit their objections

  (1996) 81 CLT 161 : (1995) 6 JT 624 : (1995) 5 SCALE 188 : (1995) 5 SCC 583 : (1995) 3 SCR 139 Supp : (1995) 2 UJ…

Service Matters

Legal assistance – Disciplinary proceedings – Assistance of legal practitioner – Assistance of legal practitioner barred under the Regulations – Only Govt. employee allowed to assist the delinquent – High Court directing the authority to allow assistance of retired employee – Though he is not a legal practitioner who is prohibited to appear to assist the delinquent, it amounts to permitting the retired employee to have regular practice

  AIR 1997 SC 2982 : (1997) 6 JT 447 : (1997) 2 LLJ 825 : (1997) 5 SCALE 14 : (1997) 6 SCC 380 : (1997) SCC(L&S) 1473 :…

Service Matters

Seniority – Absorption – Counting of services rendered by deputationist in the parent department – Held: Any Rule, Regulation or Executive Instructions which has the effect of taking away the service rendered by deputationist in an equivalent cadre in the department while counting his seniority in the deputed post would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

  AIR 2000 SC 594 : (2000) 85 FLR 305 : (1999) 9 JT 597 : (1999) 7 SCALE 466 : (2000) 1 SCC 644 : (2000) SCC(L&S) 213 :…

You missed