M. C. Chockalingam and others Versus V. Manickavasagam and others[ALL SC 1973 OCTOBER]

KEYWORDS:- LAWFUL POSSESSION-mesne profits DATE:- 31-10-1973. Lawful possession cannot be established without the concomitant existence of a lawful relationship between the landlord and the tenant. This relationship cannot be established against the consent of the landlord unless, however, in view of a special law, his consent becomes irrelevant. Lawful possession is not litigious possession and… Read More M. C. Chockalingam and others Versus V. Manickavasagam and others[ALL SC 1973 OCTOBER]

P. Malai Chami Versus M. Andi Ambalam and others[ALL SC 1973 APRIL]

KEYWORDS:-COMMON LAW-SUIT IN EQUITY- ELECTION PETITION- DATE:-18-04-1973- AIR 1973 SC 2077 : (1973) 3 SCR 1016 : (1973) 2 SCC 170 (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) P. Malai Chami Appellant Versus M. Andi Ambalam and others Respondent (Before : D. G. Palekar And A. Alagiriswami, JJ.) Civil Appeal No. 649 of 1972, Decided on : 18-04-1973.… Read More P. Malai Chami Versus M. Andi Ambalam and others[ALL SC 1973 APRIL]

Kesavananda Bharati Sripadgalvaru and others Versus State of Kerala and another [ALL SC 1973 April]

KEYWORDS:- CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT- DATE:- 24-04-1973 AIR 1973 SC 1461 : (1973) Suppl. SCR 1 : (1973) 4 SCC 225 (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadgalvaru and others Appellant Versus State of Kerala and another Respondent AND Shri Raghunath Rao Ganpath Rao and N. H. Nawab Mohammed Iftikhar Ali Khan Appellant Versus Union of… Read More Kesavananda Bharati Sripadgalvaru and others Versus State of Kerala and another [ALL SC 1973 April]

Tenanted premises can be used for another purpose than agreed in absence of negative covenant-SC

SEPTEMBER 18, 2018: The petition for eviction filed by the Landlord under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 was dismissed by the Rent Controller. The judgment of the Rent Controller was affirmed in appeal by the Appellate Authority, Faridabad and in revision by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Aggrieved thereby the landlord filed appeal befote the Supreme Court .
Supreme Court held while dismissing the appeal for eviction, in RAVI CHAND MANGLA  Versus  DIMPAL SOLANIA & ORS. that “The main point urged on behalf of the Appellant is that the premises which was let out for saw mill is now being utilized for the purpose of manufacturing of grills which amount to change of user. Submissions were made before us by both sides on the interpretation of terms of the rent agreement. On a perusal of the agreement, we are convinced that there is no restriction placed on the Respondents-tenant to run business only relating to the saw mill. The tenant was given the liberty to carry on any other business as well. In the absence of any negative covenant the user does not amount to user for the purpose other than for which the premises was leased.  A premises taken on rent for ‘sugarcane crushing’ was used for cloth business in which case the landlord’s contention that there was change of user was rejected.… Read More Tenanted premises can be used for another purpose than agreed in absence of negative covenant-SC

RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS Vs. C.N. SAHASRANAMAN AND ORS [ALL SC 1986 APRIL]

The main question which needs determination is whether part of the scheme mentioned before introduced by the Reserve Bank of India is violative of guarantee of equality before law and of equal opportunity in public employment as enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The High Court noted that the point arose at the instance of three petitioners who were Grade II working at Nagpur branch of Reserve Bank ever since their employment which commenced somewhere between 1960 to 1965.… Read More RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS Vs. C.N. SAHASRANAMAN AND ORS [ALL SC 1986 APRIL]

Social justice perspectives are integral to industrial jurisprudence – High-cost allowance as a component of D. A. is permissible in principle-SC

On a careful consideration of all the relevant factors, in my opinion, the dearness allowance paid to the PBI (Precision Bearings India) workmen at the minimum. level of basic pay from Rs. 26-upto Rs. 100-should be from 80 per cent, of the textile D.A. to 89 per cent, of the textile D.A. phased over a period of three years. The dearness allowance in the higher pay scale of Rs. 101-to Rs. 200- should be-40 per cent and in the still higher slab of Rs. 201 and above, should be 20 per cent, the percentage for the higher two slabs remaining the same.… Read More Social justice perspectives are integral to industrial jurisprudence – High-cost allowance as a component of D. A. is permissible in principle-SC

STATE (THROUGH) CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Vs. SHRI KALYAN SINGH (FORMER CM OF UP)[ALL SC 2017 APRIL]

A number of judgments have been cited including the celebrated Supreme Court judgment in Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India & Another, 1998 (4) SCC 409, in which a Constitution Bench of this Court held that Article 142 cannot authorize the Court to ignore the substantive rights of a litigant while dealing with the cause pending before it and cannot be used to supplant the substantive law applicable to the cause before this Court. A large number of other judgments following this judgment were also cited. … Read More STATE (THROUGH) CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Vs. SHRI KALYAN SINGH (FORMER CM OF UP)[ALL SC 2017 APRIL]

Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. Vs. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice [ALL SC 2018 September]

September 6, 2018:-SECTION 377of IPC-Homosexuality-It is declared that insofar as Section 377 criminalises consensual sexual acts of adults (i.e. persons above the age of 18 years who are competent to consent) in private, is violative of Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. It is, however, clarified that such consent must be free consent,… Read More Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. Vs. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice [ALL SC 2018 September]

S.K. Raju @ Abdul Haque @ Jagga Vs. State of West Bengal [ALL SC 2018 SEPTEMBER]

September 05, 2018: Section 42 OF NDPS ACT-An empowered officer under Section 42(1) is obligated to reduce to writing the information received by him, only when an offence punishable under the Act has been committed in any building, conveyance or an enclosed place, or when a document or an article is concealed in a building, conveyance or an enclosed place. Compliance with Section 42, including recording of information received by the empowered officer, is not mandatory, when an offence punishable under the Act was not committed in a building, conveyance or an enclosed place. Section 43 is attracted in situations where the seizure and arrest are conducted in a public place, which includes any public conveyance, hotel, shop, or other place intended for use by, or accessible to, the public-CONVICTION UPHELD.… Read More S.K. Raju @ Abdul Haque @ Jagga Vs. State of West Bengal [ALL SC 2018 SEPTEMBER]

Suresh Kumar Koushal & Anr vs Naz Foundation & Ors [ALL SC 2013 DECEMBER]

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.10972 OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.15436 of 2009) Suresh Kumar Koushal & Anr vs Naz Foundation & Ors Decided on: 11 December 2013 Bench: G.S. Singhvi, Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya JUDGMENT G.S. SINGHVI, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. These appeals are directed against order… Read More Suresh Kumar Koushal & Anr vs Naz Foundation & Ors [ALL SC 2013 DECEMBER]

State of West Bengal and ORS Vs  The Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and ORS [ ALL SC 2010 FEBRUARY]

It may not be out of place to mention that in so far as this Court is concerned, apart from Articles 32 and 142 which empower this Court to issue such directions, as may be necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter, Article 144 of the Constitution also mandates all authorities, civil or judicial in the territory of India, to act in aid of the orders passed by this Court.… Read More State of West Bengal and ORS Vs  The Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and ORS [ ALL SC 2010 FEBRUARY]

The scope and ambit of Sec. 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

Power under Section 319 of the Code can be exercised by the Court suo motu or on an application by someone including accused already before it, if it is satisfied that any person other than accused has committed an offence and he is to be tried together with the accused. The power is discretionary and such discretion must be exercised judicially having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Undisputedly, it is an extraordinary power which is conferred on the Court and should be used very sparingly and only if compelling reasons exist for taking action against a person against whom action had not been taken earlier. The word “EVIDENCE” in Section 319 contemplates EVIDENCE of witnesses given in Court. Under sub-section (4)(1)(b) of the aforesaid provision, it is specifically made clear that it will be presumed that newly added person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced. That would show that by virtue of sub-section (4)(1)(b) a legal fiction is created that cognizance would be presumed to have been taken so far as newly added accused is concerned. (See Lok Ram v. Nihal Singh and Anr. (AIR 2006 SC 1892)).… Read More The scope and ambit of Sec. 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure