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.

Death Penalty–What would constitute a rarest of rare case must be determined in the fact situation obtaining in each case. Confessional Statement–Only that part of confession is admissible which leads to recovery of articles/dead body–Mode and manner in which deceased was killed is inadmissible as it may influence mind of the Court.

2007(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 193 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari Criminal Appeal Nos. 867-868 of 2005…

Sanction for prosecution—Charges related to period when accused were Ministers and Chief-Minister—Cognizance of offence taken by Court when the accused ceased to be Ministers but were members of Legislative Assembly or M.P.—Sanction for prosecution under Section 19(1) of the Penal Code Act not required.

2007(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 142 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia Civil Appeal No. 5636 of 2006…

Shared Household–Wife is only entitled to claim a right of residence, in a shared household and a ‘shared household’ would only mean the house belonging to or taken on rent by the husband, or the house which belongs to the joint family of which the husband is a member–The property belonging to her parents in laws cannot be called a shared household.

2007(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 93 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before  The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju Civil Appeal No. 5837 of 2006…

You missed