Month: March 2020

“Therefore, in that circumstance even if the other aspects are not adverted to, the very fact that the Analyst’s report being served not being proved and the sample being taken in an appropriate manner not being established, it would be sufficient to hold that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and the conviction is not justified”

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1167 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No.4314 of 2015) Vijendra .…Appellant(s) Versus State of Uttar Pradesh…

Service Matters

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 142 – Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Ex-servicemen) Rules, 1988 – Rule 6B – A candidate who is not eligible on the last date of submission of application cannot be treated to be eligible in the category of Ex-servicemen when the writ petitioners were in active service on the last date of submission of application forms

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, AJMER AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SHIKUN RAM FIRUDA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and…

Electricity Supply Cannot Be Disconnected For Recovery Of Additional Demand Raised After Expiry Of Two Years Limitation Period HELD Section 56(2) however, does not preclude the licensee company from raising a supplementary demand after the expiry of the limitation period of two years. It only restricts the right of the licensee to disconnect electricity supply due to non-payment of dues after the period of limitation of two years has expired

Electricity Supply Cannot Be Disconnected For Recovery Of Additional Demand Raised After Expiry Of Two Years Limitation Period: SC [Read Judgment] LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK 19 Feb 2020 2:31 PM The…

Matrimonial Dispute – Petitioner has stated in her application that she is left homeless – Court are not entering into the merits of the rival contentions between the parties which will be heard at a future date – By way of an ad-hoc arrangement, This Court direct the respondent to pay a lump sum amount of Rs 4 lakhs to the petitioner on or before 31 March 2020.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NEELAM MANMOHAN ATTAVAR — Appellant Vs. MANMOHAN ATTAVAR (D) THR LRS. — Respondent ( Before : D.Y. Chandrachud and Surya Kant, JJ. ) I.A.…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) -Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 – Allegation is that the appellant had sold the same flat to two persons – Continued custody of the appellant is not warranted – Charges have already been framed – Appellant has been in custody for over a year and three months – This Court direct that the appellant be released on bail

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KHURSHID KHAN — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Surya Kant, JJ. ) Criminal…

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.