Month: June 2017

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482–Criminal breach of Trust-Fraudulent Documents–Quashing– If on the basis of false and fraudulent documents a claim is made which leads to award of compensation in land acquisition matter, the interest of the State is certainly compromised or adversely affected-

2017(1) Law Herald (SC) 461 : 2017 LawHerald.Org 606  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit Criminal…

Service Matters

Service Law—Seniority—Reservation-Exercise for determining ‘inadequacy of representation’, ‘backwardness’ and ‘overall efficiency’, is a must for exercise of power under Article 16(4A)—Mere fact that there is no proportionate representation in promotional posts for the population of SCs and STs is not by itself enough to grant consequential seniority to promotees

2017(1) Law Herald (SC) 471 : 2017 LawHerald.Org 605 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Laiit…

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.34–Suit for Declaration-Suit for a mere declaration without relief of recovery of possession is not maintainable-The plaintiff, who was not in possession, had in the suit claimed only declaratory relief along with mandatory injunction-Plaintiff being out of possession, the relief of recovery of possession was a further relief which ought to have been claimed by the plaintiff.

2017(1) Law Herald (SC) 464 : 2017 LawHerald.Org 604 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan Civil Appeal…

Service Matters

Service Law–Seniority–Classification on the basis those who cleared test in time and those who cleared late though with permission—Held; when the Rules did not provide for creation of two classes between the employees working on one cadre; such a classification is not justified.

2017(1) Law Herald (SC) 458 : 2017 LawHerald.Org 607 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar  The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre Civil…

You missed

Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Distribution Licence) Regulations, 2013 – Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 – Sections 3 and 4 – Electricity Act – Section 14(b) – Whether a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) developer, deemed to be a distribution licensee under the Electricity Act, is required to make an application for a distribution license and comply with the conditions set out in the Electricity Rules and Regulations. – The appeal challenges the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity’s decision to require an appellant to infuse additional capital as a condition for being identified as a deemed distribution licensee – The court questioned whether a SEZ developer is ipso facto a deemed distribution licensee, obviating the need for an application under section 14 of the Electricity Act – The appellant argued that they are automatically a deemed distribution licensee by virtue of the 2010 Notification and that the conditions imposed by TSERC were in excess of jurisdiction – The respondents argued that the appellant must comply with the 2005 and 2013 Regulations and that TSERC is empowered to impose conditions to assess credit-worthiness – The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the condition of additional capital infusion imposed by TSERC – The court reasoned that the appellant must apply to be recognized as a deemed licensee but is not subject to the additional capital requirements of regulation 12 and rule 3(2) – The court concluded that the appellant is required to make an application as per the 2013 Regulations, and the condition to infuse additional capital is not justified.