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.

Since the Ordinance in question was not got converted into an Act of the legislature, it lapsed and, therefore, the consequential action taken thereunder must also fall. The notices issued to the appellants under the said Ordinance can, therefore, have no efficacy in law and must be held to have become ineffective – Appeal disposed of.

  (1998) 8 SCC 725 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA SRI CHAND KASERA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : A. M. Ahmadii,…

Rape—Intercourse—Penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual inter course necessary to the offence rape. Modesty—Test—Action which is capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman. Rape—Ejaculation without penetration constitutes an attempt to commit rape and not actual rape.

    2007(3) LAW HERALD (SC) 1995 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia Criminal Appeal No.…

You missed