Latest Post

Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 — Section 3(b) — Exclusion of employees appointed on academic arrangement basis from regularization — Classification held unconstitutional — Section 3(b) lacks intelligible differentia and rational nexus to the object of the Act — Denial of regularization solely based on nomenclature is impermissible under Article 14 of the Constitution where duties, tenure, and conditions of service are similar to ad hoc or contractual appointees. Adverse Possession — Claiming title by adverse possession against the State/Union Government is not permissible, irrespective of the duration of possession — Such perfection of rights is not recognized against the government. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Quashing of criminal proceedings — High Court quashed proceedings against sister-in-law on ground of general and omnibus allegations, but declined relief to father-in-law and mother-in-law (appellants) — Allegations against appellants were similarly general and omnibus, with no specific role or overt act attributed to them — Delay in lodging FIR, coupled with lack of specific allegations, suggested possibility of FIR being a counter-blast to divorce petition filed by husband — High Court erred in applying different standards to similarly situated accused — Proceedings against appellants quashed. Companies Act, 2013 — Section 66 — Reduction of Share Capital — Procedural Fairness — Minority Shareholders — Valuation of Shares — Non-disclosure of valuation report and fairness report in notice for general meeting — Held, not a “tricky notice” as statutory requirement for valuation report not mandated under Section 66 — Valuation by a related agency — Held, not a conflict of interest where internal auditor is independent and valuation agency follows accepted norms — Discount for Lack of Marketability (DLOM) — Held, applicable to illiquid shares, especially in absence of oppression — Share price fixation — Held reasonable based on market value of subsidiary, past offers, and rights issue. Specific Performance of Agreement to Sell — Trial Court decreed suit for specific performance of sale agreement — High Court set aside Trial Court’s decree — Held, Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) executed on the same day as sale agreement established that sale agreement was sham and nominal, executed as security for loan — Plaintiff’s failure to disclose MoU in plaint indicated withholding of material facts and lack of bonafides — Equitable relief of specific performance denied — Appeal dismissed.

Agreement of re-conveyance – – The father of the respondent had obtained the sale deed in the name of the minor, obviously he is bound by the agreement of re conveyance as well. Having received the money, he had not executed the sale deed – The subsequent purchaser is bound by this decree of specific performance and liable to re-convey

  (1996) 9 AD 406 : (1996) 8 SCALE 687 : (1997) 1 SCC 475 : (1996) 8 SCR 720 Supp SUPREME COURT OF INDIA NIVARTI GOVIND INGALE AND OTHERS…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 300 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 9, 45 – Murder – Identification of dead body – Finger prints of deceased taken through spoon method – Receipt produced by prosecution bearing thumb impression of deceased, not proved – Comparison of finger prints of deceased with that of thumb impression – Would be of no consequence

  AIR 2007 SC 1028 : (2007) CLT 847 Supp : (2006) 12 SCALE 470 : (2006) 9 SCR 733 Supp SUPREME COURT OF INDIA SADASHIO MUNDAJI BHALERAO — Appellant…

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 465(2) – Sanction for prosecution – Irregularity in – Effect of – Irregularity in sanction would not by itself render the trial vitiated. Terrorist & Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act-Section 3(4) – Harbour – Meaning of – Must be understood in its ordinary meaning as for penal provision – Mens rea is not excluded from constituting harbouring.

  AIR 1998 SC 201 : (1998) CriLJ 369 : (1997) 9 JT 18 : (1997) 6 SCALE 689 : (1997) 8 SCC 732 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA KALPNATH RAI…

Service Matters

The criminal charge and the charge in the departmental enquiry were entirely different. The appellate court in the criminal case came to the conclusion that since the two ladies had not supported the prosecution case, the charges against the appellant were not proved – It is a settled proposition of law that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental enquiries.

  (1998) 8 SCC 723 : (1999) SCC(L&S) 257 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA STATE OF T.N. — Appellant Vs. M.A. WAHEED KHAN — Respondent ( Before : Kuldip Singh, J;…

You missed