This content is restricted to site members. If you are an existing user, please log in. New users may register below.
No Estoppel against law, erroneous concession in law by advocate does not bind client.
Bysclaw
Sep 28, 2019By sclaw
Related Post
Classification of Military casualties and the eligibility for Liberalised Family Pension — Battle Casualty —Illness Caused by Extreme Climatic Conditions as Battle Casualty — The Court establishes that a soldier’s death due to illness resulting from extreme climatic conditions while on duty near a sensitive border area (such as the Line of Control) can be categorized as a ‘Battle Casualty’ — This expands the interpretation of what constitutes a battle casualty under military regulations. – Liberalised Family Pension (LFP) — Application of Category E (f) — The judgment clarifies that deaths occurring in war-like situations, including those near international borders or lines of control due to environmental stresses, fall under clause (f) of category E of the relevant military order — This broadens the scope of eligibility for LFP under such circumstances.
Dec 8, 2024
sclaw
Service Law — Termination — Service Benefits — The Supreme Court held that the appellant is likely an Indian citizen based on his father’s migration certificate — The Court found that the termination of his service was arbitrary and violated natural justice principles, as he was not given an opportunity to defend himself — The Court directed that appellant be entitled to all unpaid service benefits and issued a general direction for timely police verification in government appointments. – Foreigners Act, 1946 — Section 9 — Citizenship Proof — Onus of Proof — The Court reaffirmed that under Section 9, the onus of proving citizenship lies on the person claiming it. -Citizenship Act, 1955 — Section 5(1)(a) — Indian Origin —The Court noted that persons of Indian origin who have been ordinary residents in India for seven years are entitled to citizenship under Section 5(1)(a).
Dec 8, 2024
sclaw
Service Law — Retirement Age and the applicability of regulatory amendments in private, minority educational institutions affiliated with state universities — State-Specific Regulations Prevail — The court held that when a state government has not adopted amended regulations increasing the superannuation age, such amendments do not automatically apply to institutions within that state, even if they are governed by central regulatory bodies like AICTE and UGC.
Dec 8, 2024
sclaw