Month: November 2019

Service Matters

The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 as well as The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is that even if a juvenile is convicted, the same should be obliterated, so that there is no stigma with regard to any crime committed by such person as a juvenile.

There Is No Stigma With Regard To Any Crime Committed By A Juvenile, Says SC “Even if a juvenile is convicted, the same should be obliterated” The Supreme Court has…

Contents Of Memory Card Will Be ‘Document’ And Not ‘Material Object’ HELD “we hold that the contents of the memory card/pen drive being electronic record must be regarded as a document. If the prosecution is relying on the same, ordinarily, the accused must be given a cloned copy thereof to enable him/her to present an effective defence during the trial.

Contents Of Memory Card Will Be ‘Document’ And Not ‘Material Object’ : SC [Read Judgment] The contents of a memory card in relation to a crime amount to a ‘document’…

Service Matters

Order Convening General Court Martial Can Be Challenged Before AFT, Holds SC HELD Any matter relating to the conditions of service falls within the definition of ‘service matters’ under Section 3 (o) of the Act and can be the subject matter of an application filed before the Tribunal. Therefore, conditions of service also include dismissal from service.

Order Convening General Court Martial Can Be Challenged Before AFT, Holds SC BY: ASHOK KINI 28 Nov 2019 11:09 AM The Supreme Court has held that an order convening a…

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 41 Rule 5 – Section 96 and Order 41 – Determination – Recovery of loss – A chart showing the original price as against the resale price, thereby projecting the net loss suffered by the appellant, the correctness of the same cannot be adjudicated in a proceeding of the present nature arising out of a writ proceeding – The matter being contractual and also requiring factual determination

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ODISHA FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION — Appellant Vs. M/S ANUPAM TRADERS AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy,…

Service Matters

Assam Public Service Commission (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Rules, 2010 – Rule 29 and Rule 30 – Assam Public Service Commission (Conduct of Business) Procedure, 2019 – Clause 12.2 – Interviews/selection – This Court are persuaded to hold that the recruitment process initiated by the APSC through the advertisement dated 21.12.2018 for the 65 posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil), of the Water Resources Department should be finalised under the 2010 Rules

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH THE ASSAM PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. PRANJAL KUMAR SARMA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna…

You missed

“Husband Has No Right On Wife’s Stridhan” Matrimonial Law – The appeal concerns a matrimonial dispute involving misappropriation of gold jewellery and monetary gifts – The appellant, a widow, married the first respondent, a divorcee, and alleged misappropriation of her jewelry and money by the respondents – The core issue is whether the appellant established the misappropriation of her gold jewellery by the respondents and if the High Court erred in its judgment – The appellant claimed that her jewellery was taken under the pretext of safekeeping on her wedding night and misappropriated by the respondents to settle their financial liabilities – The respondents denied the allegations, stating no dowry was demanded and that the appellant had custody of her jewellery, which she took to her paternal home six days after the marriage – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, upheld the Family Court’s decree, and awarded the appellant Rs. 25,00,000 as compensation for her misappropriated stridhan – The Court found the High Court’s approach legally unsustainable, criticizing it for demanding a criminal standard of proof and basing findings on assumptions not supported by evidence – The Court emphasized the civil standard of proof as the balance of probabilities and noted that the appellant’s claim for return of stridhan does not require proof of acquisition – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant had established a more probable case and directed the first respondent to pay the compensation within six months, with a 6% interest per annum in case of default.