slcdailylaw
  • Home
  • Topic Search
  • Advanced Search
  • Citation Search
  • Bookmarks
  • Login
  • Superme Court
  • High Courts
(1) SUPREME COURT
Mutation

A. Constitution of India, 1950—Article 226—Scope of judicial review—Disputed title and revenue entries—Held: Proceedings under Article 226 are not appropriate for adjudication of serious disputes relating to title over immovable property—Revenue entries by themselves neither confer nor prove title—Questions of ownership requiring examination of evidence must ordinarily be decided by competent civil forum and not in writ jurisdiction. (Paras 16–20) B. Revenue Records—Mutation entries—Evidentiary value—Held: Entries in Revenue Records such as Pahanies, Faisal Patti or Vasool Baqi are maintained primarily for fiscal purposes and do not create or extinguish title—Mutation has no presumptive value regarding ownership—In absence of primary title documents like ...

Petition dismissed
(2) SUPREME COURT
NDPS

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985—Sections 20(b)(ii)(c), 29 & 37—Bail—Prolonged incarceration—Held: Despite rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act and recovery of commercial quantity of contraband, prolonged custody of accused for more than one year without examination of a single witness after framing of charge justified grant of bail—Continued detention held unwarranted in absence of progress in trial. (Paras 3–5) ...

(3) SUPREME COURT
Interest

A. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016—Section 18 & Corporate Veil—Subsidiary assets in CIRP—Held: Assets of subsidiary companies are ordinarily distinct from those of the corporate debtor, but where subsidiaries are mere alter ego/fronts of the holding company, courts may lift the corporate veil—If the holding company exercises dominant control and is real developer/beneficiary, assets and development rights can be considered within CIRP framework—Present case held fit for lifting corporate veil. (Paras 53–56) B. Insolvency law—Resolution plan—Leasehold land—Consent of lessor authority—Held: Where land is held on lease from a statutory authority, transfer of leasehold rights or continuation of development requires consent of lessor—However, resolution pla...

Appeal dismissed
(4) SUPREME COURT

A. Constitution of India, 1950—Article 21—Speedy trial—Bail—Held: Prolonged incarceration without progress in trial (no witness examined for years) violates the fundamental right to speedy trial—Courts must protect personal liberty—Even in grave offences, delay attributable to prosecution justifies grant of bail. (Paras 5–7) B. Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 302/34—Bail—Gravity vs delay—Held: Seriousness of offence like murder cannot by itself justify indefinite detention—Where accused remains in custody for long period and trial is stagnant, right to liberty outweighs gravity of offence—Bail to be granted subject to conditions. (Paras 6–8) ...

(5) SUPREME COURT

A. Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 13(7) read with Order XXII CPC—Substitution of legal heirs—Held: On death of a party (complainant or opposite party), proceedings do not automatically abate—Substitution of legal representatives depends on whether the “right to sue survives”, which must be determined from substantive law—Order XXII CPC applies to consumer proceedings as well as appeals. (Paras 34–39) B. Indian Succession Act, 1925—Section 306—Survival of cause of action—Held: General rule: all causes of action survive to or against legal representatives—Exception: purely personal claims (defamation, assault, personal injuries not causing death) do not survive—However, claims involving pecuniary loss to estate or benefit derived by wrongdoer&r...

(6) SUPREME COURT

A. Companies Act, 1956—Sections 397, 398, 399 read with Sections 2(27) & 41—“Member”—Meaning and scope—Held: Expression “member” for purposes of oppression and mismanagement petitions cannot be construed narrowly with reference to Section 41 alone—Broader definition under Section 2(27) applies—A person may be treated as a member even without formal entry in register if he has agreed to become member and is recognised as such by company’s conduct—Equitable jurisdiction under Sections 397–398 requires liberal interpretation to protect substantive rights. (Paras 21–23) B. Company law—Membership—Absence of name in register—Effect—Held: Entry in register of members is not an absolute or inflexible requirement—Where...

Appeal dismissed
(7) SUPREME COURT
Service Law

A. Service Law—Promotion—Relaxation of Rules—Scope—Held: Power of relaxation of service rules can be exercised by the Government as a policy decision in special circumstances, particularly to remove hardship or give effect to earlier judicial directions—Where relaxation is granted uniformly and based on relevant considerations, it cannot be termed arbitrary or illegal. (Paras 19–20, 23) B. Service Rules—Merger of cadres—Seniority—Held: Upon merger of departments, inter se seniority must be determined in accordance with governing rules and Government Orders—Employees from original Engineering Department are to be placed above those transferred from Town Planning Department as per policy—Unchallenged Government policy is binding. (Paras 16–17) C. Promoti...

Appeal allowed
(8) SUPREME COURT
Service Law

A. Service Law—Recruitment—Eligibility criteria—Relevant date for qualification—Held: The cut-off date for determining eligibility is the last date of submission of application, unless otherwise expressly provided—Candidates must possess the prescribed educational qualification on that date—Subsequent acquisition of qualification before examination or interview does not cure initial ineligibility. (Paras 18, 25) B. Recruitment Rules—Statutory rules vs advertisement—Held: Where statutory rules governing recruitment clearly require possession of qualification at the time of application, executive instructions or interpretations cannot dilute or override such rules—Deletion of earlier relaxation permitting final-year candidates indicates legislative intent to restrict eligibi...

Petition dismissed
(9) SUPREME COURT
Quashing of FIR

A. Constitution of India, 1950—Article 226—Alternative remedy—Registration of FIR—Held: Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is extraordinary and discretionary—Ordinarily, High Court should not direct registration of FIR when statutory remedies under criminal law are available and not exhausted—Direct invocation of writ jurisdiction bypassing statutory mechanism is impermissible—Impugned order directing police action set aside. (Paras 7–11) B. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (earlier CrPC)—Sections 173(1), 173(4), 175(3)—Sequential remedies—Held: Statutory framework provides a complete mechanism—First approach police for FIR, then Superintendent of Police, and thereafter Magistrate—Complainant must follow this sequence before invoking writ j...

Quashed
(10) SUPREME COURT
Election

Election Laws - Implementation of Election Commission Circular - Assurance by the Election Commission to implement its circular dated 13th April, 2026 in true letter and spirit recorded by the Supreme Court - Special Leave Petition dismissed on this basis. [Paras 2 to 3] ...

(1) HIMACHAL PRADESH
Security cheque

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Sections 118, 139—Presumption—Rebuttal—Held: Once issuance of cheque and signature thereon are admitted or proved, statutory presumption arises that cheque was issued towards discharge of legally enforceable debt—Burden shifts on accused to rebut presumption on preponderance of probabilities—Failure to lead evidence or raise probable defence results in conviction. (Paras 6–8, 12) B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 138—“Security cheque”—Liability—Held: Dishonour of cheque issued as “security” also attracts offence under Section 138, if it relates to a subsisting liability and becomes enforceable on default—There is no statutory exemption for security cheques under the Act. (Paras 10–11) ...

(2) ALLAHABAD

A. Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021—Section 35(1)—Appeal—Pre-deposit—Nature—Held: Requirement of pre-deposit of 50% of adjudicated amount is mandatory and jurisdictional—Use of expression “no appeal shall lie” makes it a condition precedent for institution of appeal—In absence of such deposit, appeal is non-est and not maintainable in law. (Paras 27–29, 55) B. Limitation—Pre-deposit—Interplay—Held: Pre-deposit and limitation are cumulative requirements—Deposit made beyond limitation does not validate an otherwise incompetent appeal—Appeal is treated as instituted only upon compliance of pre-deposit, and delay must be separately explained and condoned—Pre-deposit cannot cure limitation defect. (Paras 31–33, 4...

Petition dismissed
(3) ALLAHABAD
Custody of minor child

Constitution of India, 1949—Article 226—Custody of minor child—Writ jurisdiction—Natural guardian—After the death of the mother, custody of a 13-month-old child was claimed by the father as natural guardian—The child was in the care of maternal relatives—In the absence of any material showing the father to be unfit and considering his financial stability and ability to provide proper upbringing, the father’s legal and natural claim prevails—Welfare of the child does not justify denial of custody to the father merely on preference for maternal relatives—Mere claim that maternal relatives would better serve child’s welfare does not override father’s legal right —To preserve child’s emotional bond with father, custody directed to be given to him—Materna...

(4) MADRAS
Partition, Hindu Law

Hindu Law (Mulla, 22nd Edn.)—Artcles 241 & 254—Karta—Powers & Alienation—Legal Necessity—Binding Effect of—Karta of a Hindu Undivided Family is its supreme manager and legal representative, empowered to manage family affairs, represent it in proceedings, incur debts, and alienate coparcenary property—Such alienation is valid and binding on all coparceners, including minors and widows, if made for legal necessity or benefit of estate, with a presumption of validity attaching to Karta’s acts—Existence of legal necessity is fact-specific; discharge of tax liabilities of family business constitutes legal necessity—Once such necessity is proved, the alienation cannot be challenged by any coparcener. A. Specific Relief Act, 1963—Section 10 (prior to amendment)—Sp...

Appeal dismissed
(5) JAMMU & KASHMIR
Interim compensation

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 143-A—Sections 138 and 142—Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023—Section 528—Interim compensation—Discretionary power—Held: Power under S. 143-A NI Act to grant interim compensation is discretionary and not mandatory—Use of expression “may” requires judicial application of mind—Court must prima facie evaluate complainant’s case and defence of accused before granting such relief—Mechanical exercise of power without consideration of defence (such as denial of signature) is impermissible—Impugned order granting 10% compensation set aside. (Paras 16 to 20, 23 to 25) B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 143-A—Interim compensation—Requirement of reasons and quantum—Held: Grant of in...

Appeal allowed
(6) ORISSA
Appeal against acquittal

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—Section 372 proviso, Section 2(wa), Section 378(4)—Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023—Section 413, Section 2(1)(y), Section 419(4)—Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 138—Appeal against acquittal—Complainant as “victim”—Maintainability—Held: In cheque dishonour cases, complainant who suffers pecuniary loss is a “victim” within meaning of S. 2(wa) CrPC / S. 2(1)(y) BNSS—Such complainant has independent statutory right to file appeal against acquittal under proviso to S. 372 CrPC / S. 413 BNSS—Resort to S. 378(4) CrPC / S. 419(4) BNSS not mandatory—Victim’s right of appeal is substantive and not diluted merely because case instituted on complaint. (Paras 11 to 18, 21) B. Code of Criminal Pro...

Appeal dismissed
(7) ALLAHABAD

A. Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021—Section 35(1)—Appeal—Pre-deposit—Continuing obligation—Held: Pre-deposit of 50% of “entire amount payable” is mandatory and not confined to a one-time deposit at the time of filing appeal—Where impugned order creates recurring liability (e.g., revised rent), obligation extends to continuous deposit during pendency of appeal—Requirement is dynamic and subsists so long as liability continues. (Paras 14–17, 23.3–23.4) B. Rent law—Recurring liability—Interpretation of “entire amount payable”—Held: Expression “entire amount payable” includes ongoing accruals and cannot be restricted to amount due on date of appeal—Restrictive interpretation would defeat legislative ...

Petition dismissed
(8) ALLAHABAD
Rejection of plaint

A. Hindu Succession Act, 1956—Section 14—Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order VII Rule 11— Rejection of plaint—Suit by son and daughter claiming property in mother’s name as HUF property—Held, not maintainable—Any property purchased by female Hindu whether before or after the commencement of the Act shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner—Where property is purchased in the name of a female Hindu after commencement of the Act, she becomes its absolute owner U/s 14, irrespective of source of consideration, unless a restricted estate is shown—Mere bald assertion by daughter and son that property was acquired from Hindu undivided family funds, without proof of nucleus, is insufficient—Therefore, even if consideration was provided by husband, title vest...

(9) ALLAHABAD
Eviction, Rent Law

A. Constitution of India—Article 227—Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021—Sections 21(2)(b), 4(3) and 4(7)—Eviction—Scope of supervisory jurisdiction—Held: High Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of Rent Authority and Rent Tribunal where landlord-tenant relationship and statutory default stand proved—Non-compliance with S. 4(3) constitutes a valid ground for eviction under S. 4(7)—Eviction orders upheld. (Paras 2–4) B. Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021—Sections 21 and 4—Grounds of eviction—Statutory non-compliance—Held: Even if default prior to commencement of Act may not independently justify eviction, admitted non-furnishing of tenancy particulars under S. 4(3) is sufficient—Eviction le...

(10) RAJASTHAN
Handwriting expert

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872—Section 45—Handwriting expert—Right of accused—Held: Accused disputing signatures on cheque is entitled to seek examination by handwriting expert—Denial of such opportunity amounts to denial of fair trial—Application should ordinarily be allowed unless found to be vexatious or intended to delay proceedings—Impugned order rejecting such request set aside. (Paras 9–11, 15–17) B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Sections 138, 139—Presumption—Rebuttal—Held: Section 139 creates a rebuttable presumption in favour of the holder of cheque—Burden shifts on accused to disprove liability—To rebut such presumption, accused must be afforded full opportunity to lead defence evidence, including expert opinion. (Paras 12–14) ...

Allowed
slcdailylaw

Tomar Publication

561, Sec-2, Jagriti Vihar, Meerut-250004

0121 3561932, +91 9458 5523 61

tomarpublication999@gmail.com

Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy

© SLC Daily law all right reserved.

Cookies Required

Please enable cookies in your browser settings to continue.