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.

Income Tax Act, 1963 – Section – 245C, 245H, 245D – Application for settlement – The assessee approached the Settlement Commission (Commission) with an application under Section 245-C of the Act – Section 245-H empowers the Commission to grant immunity from prosecution to an applicant if it is satisfied that he has made full disclosure of his income and has fully cooperated with the Commission

  (1996) 2 AD 629 : (1996) 132 CTR 290 : (1996) 219 ITR 618 : (1996) 3 JT 144 : (1996) 2 SCALE 655 : (1996) 8 SCC 154…

Service Matters

Promotion – The respondents-employees were appointed to the posts of L.D.C. in 1970-71 – The Departmental Promotion Committee constituted for the purpose of selection for promotion to the post of U.D.C. had considered the appellant’s claim and found him fit. It regularised his services and has given him the promotion as he was senior to the respondents

  (1997) 10 JT 700 : (1997) 3 SCALE 91 : (1997) 9 SCC 658 : (1997) SCC(L&S) 1098 : (1997) 2 SCR 628 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA PRAHALLAD BARAL…

Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 – Section – 3(7) – Judicial separation – The claim made by learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, is that a wife who had separated in property from her husband, shall be treated to be a judicially separated wife for the purposes of Section 3(7) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960

  (1998) 7 JT 237 : (1998) 9 SCC 186 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA SAROJ BHARDWAJ (SMT) AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND OTHERS — Respondent (…

Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 – Section 95(2)(b) – Statutory liability of insurer – Scope of – The insured vehicle allowed to carry six passenger, the maximum liability of insurer is at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per passenger subject to total liability of Rs. 20,000/-. Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 – Section 110-B – Compensation – Considerations for determination of – Necessity to balance loss of future pecuniary benefit which could have accrued to the claimant – Decision partly on conjectures – Permissibility.

  (1971) ACJ 206 : AIR 1971 SC 1624 : (1971) 1 SCC 785 : (1971) SCR 20 Supp : (1971) 3 UJ 489 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA SHEIKHUPURA TRANSPORT…

Interpretation of deeds – Release deed – Scope of – Principle for construction of instrument relinquishing the property – Effect of wide language employed in the instrument. It is a well settled rule of interpretation of deeds of release that however wide and general the covenant of release may be, its operation must be restricted to the rights which are in the contemplation or in controversy between the parties and would not cover or comprehend rights which are never in the minds of the parties at that time.

  AIR 1975 SC 895 : (1976) 1 SCC 299 : (1975) 7 UJ 303 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RAJAGOPAL PILLAI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. PAKKIAM AMMAL AND OTHERS…

You missed