Latest Post

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 25-O — Procedure for closing down an undertaking — Right to close down business is integral to right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) but subject to reasonable restrictions — Section 25-O provides a detailed procedure for obtaining prior permission for closure — Appropriate Government must conduct an enquiry and grant a hearing before passing a reasoned order — If no order is communicated within 60 days, permission is deemed to be granted. Criminal Law — Circumstantial Evidence — Admitted Facts — Cause of death by gunshot from a specific weapon in appellant’s home undisputed — Appellant admitted removing the body and cleaning the scene — Discovery of articles linked to the incident from appellant’s disclosure relevant for Section 201 IPC. Maternity leave as a facet of reproductive rights and dignity is a constitutional guarantee, requiring service rules to be interpreted liberally, not restricting benefit based on children from a previous marriage not in the employee’s custody. A flawed investigation, suppression of material evidence in the form of contradictory witness affidavits, and failure to address glaring inconsistencies render prosecution evidence unreliable, necessitating acquittal to ensure a fair trial. Five golden principles for cases based on circumstantial evidence reiterated: (1) circumstances establishing conclusion of guilt must be fully established; (2) facts established consistent only with hypothesis of guilt; (3) circumstances conclusive in nature; (4) exclude every possible hypothesis except guilt; (5) complete chain of evidence leaving no reasonable ground for innocence
Service Matters

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section – 33(1)(a), 33A – Order of dismissal – The respondent filed an application under Section 33(1)(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 contending that since the dispute relating to an employee in Bhadrak zone was pending adjudication in the Industrial Tribunal, without the leave of the Tribunal under Section 33A his service could not be terminated

(1997) 84 CLT 531 : (1997) 2 LLJ 382 : (1996) 9 SCALE 277 : (1997) 9 SCC 296 : (1997) SCC(L&S) 1297 : (1996) 9 SCR 380 Supp SUPREME…

Dishonour of Cheque—Offence by Company—Liability of Director— Any restriction on their power or existence of any special circumstance that makes them not liable is something that is peculiarly within their knowledge and it is for them to establish at the trial such a restriction or to show that at the relevant time they were not incharge of the affairs of the company

  2007(2) LAW HERALD (SC) 1379 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan Criminal Appeal No. 592 of…