Month: March 2020

High Court ought to have kept in view that ‘Bail is rule and jail is exception’ – There is no gain saying that bail should not be granted or rejected in a mechanical manner as it concerns the liberty of a person . Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 420, 177, 181, 193, 200, 120­B, 498­A, 323 and 506 – Bail application

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH JEETENDRA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. — Respondent ( Before : S.A. Bobde, CJI., B.R. Gavai and Surya Kant.,…

Land Acquisition Act, 1984 – Sections 4, 6 and 11 – Deduction – Since the land was acquired for the construction of Hiwra Dam project, much of the development like in the case of a layout for housing colony is not required – 40% deduction made by the High Court appears to be on the higher side

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SAJAN — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal Nos.…

Public Interest Also Shall Be Demonstrated Before Writ Remedy Is Sought In Tender Matters: SC HELD “In addition to arbitrariness, illegality or discrimination under Article 14 or encroachment of freedom under Article 19(1)(g), public interest too is demonstrated before remedy is sought.”

Public Interest Also Shall Be Demonstrated Before Writ Remedy Is Sought In Tender Matters: SC [Read Judgment] LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK 18 March 2020 5:38 PM “In addition to arbitrariness, illegality…

Service Matters

Bharat Petroleum Limited Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules for Management Staff, 1976 – Rules 3(e), 3(g) and 3(h) – Punishment of dismissal – Corporation is aggrieved to the extent the impugned order sets aside the order of punishment on the ground that the chargesheet had not been issued by the disciplinary authority. The employee is aggrieved by the grant of liberty to the Corporation for issuance of fresh chargesheet, and denial of back wages while granting reinstatement. In the interregnum, the employee has attained the age of superannuation HELD The term Competent Authority will include a disciplinary authority so authorised in the manner prescribed in 3(h) under the delegation of authority manual. Appeal Allowed

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. ANIL PADEGAONKAR — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and Navin Sinha, JJ ) Civil…

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2(d) and 2(1)(d) – Registered workers – Beneficiaries of service – Whether a construction worker who is registered under the Building and Other Construction Workers’ (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 and is a beneficiary of the Scheme made under the Rules framed pursuant to the enactment, is a ‘consumer’ HELD YES a ‘consumer’ includes not only   a person who has hired or availed of service but even a beneficiary of a service. The registered workers are clearly beneficiaries of the service provided by the Board in a statutory capacity –

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND REGISTERING OFFICER AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. KESAR LAL — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and…

A plea of adverse possession is founded on the acceptance that ownership of the property vests in another against whom the claimant asserts a possession adverse to the title of the other. Possession is adverse in the sense that it is contrary to the acknowledged title in the other person against whom it is claimed. HELD To substantiate a plea of adverse possession, the character of the possession must be adequate in continuity and in the public because the possession has to be to the knowledge of the true owner in order for it to be adverse.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 190 OF 2020 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 16321 OF 2011) SHRI UTTAM CHAND (D) THROUGH…

You missed

Temple Bye Laws — Oachira Parabrahma Temple — Ancient structure without a building or deity, governed by Bye-laws with three-tier elected committees — Appellants, elected Secretary and President, challenged two High Court orders (2020 and 2023) that removed their committee and appointed an unelected one under an Administrative Head, citing violations of the temple’s Bye-laws and customs —Legality of appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one contrary to the temple’s Bye-laws — Petitioner argues that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction and violated the temple’s governance structure by appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one without proper legal basis — The High Court’s actions were necessary for the efficient administration of the temple until a scheme could be framed and new elections held — The Supreme Court modified the High Court orders, appointing a new retired Judge as Administrative Head to conduct fair elections within four months, while directing all parties to cooperate — The Court emphasized the need to preserve temple properties and governance as per established customs and laws — The Supreme Court struck down the High Court’s order appointing an unelected committee, appointed a new Administrative Head to conduct elections, and directed all parties to cooperate, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the temple’s established governance structure and Bye-laws.