Month: May 2020

IN RE : PROBLEMS AND MISERIES OF MIGRANT LABOURERS HELD No fare either by train or by bus shall be charged from any migrant workers – Railway fare shall be shared by the States as per their arrangement as submitted by the learned Solicitor General and in no case any fare should be asked or charged from any migrant workers by the States and the Railways & other interim directions issued.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH IN RE : PROBLEMS AND MISERIES OF MIGRANT LABOURERS ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.R. Shah, JJ. ) (IA…

ACQUITTAL ::: Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 34, 394, 460 and 302 – Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti Avam Vyapharan Adhiniyam, 1981 – Sections 11 and 13 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 313 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27 and 114 -Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 34 – Common intention – Prosecution has to establish by evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, that there was plan or meeting of minds of all the accused persons to commit the offence for which they are charged with the aid of Section 34, be it pre-arranged or on the spur of the moment; but it must necessarily be before the commission of the crime.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SONU @ SUNIL — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and K.M. Joseph, JJ. )…

Service Matters

Bihar Service Code – Rule 73 – Compulsory retirement – Rule 73 of the Bihar Service Code does not prescribe any length of service as criteria for retirement. The prescribed age of retirement for employees of the category to which the Appellant belonged was 58 years, later increased to 60 years. The decision of the respondents to retire the Appellant before he attained the age of 60 years as per his actual date of birth. Matter referred to CJI as difference of opinion..

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GOPAL PRASAD — Appellant Vs. BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and Ajay Rastogi, JJ. )…

Service Matters

Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978 – Rule 34.3 – Payment of gratuity – Employer has a right to withhold gratuity during pendency of the disciplinary proceedings. HELD termination’ and ‘dismissal’ are held to be synonymous but the difference between ‘termination’ and ‘dismissal’ is that dismissal could be on account of misconduct with loss of future employment involving dishonesty or criminality and penal in character but that is not in the case of termination – The “termination” as per Black’s Law Dictionary is the complete severance of relationship of employer and employee which in the instant case could be saved during pendency of the disciplinary proceedings

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, MAHANADI COALFIELDS LIMITED — Appellant Vs. SRI RABINDRANATH CHOUBEY — Respondent ( Before : Arun Mishra, M.R. Shah and Ajay Rastogi,…

Partnership Act, 1932 – Sections 37 and 48 – Distinction between ‘retirement of a partner’ and ‘dissolution of a partnership firm’ – On retirement of the partner, the reconstituted firm continues and the retiring partner is to be paid his dues in terms of Section 37 of the Partnership Act. In case of dissolution, accounts have to be settled and distributed as per the mode prescribed in Section 48 of the Partnership Act.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH GURU NANAK INDUSTRIES, FARIDABAD AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. AMAR SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, Sanjiv Khanna and…

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 32 – Writ Petition – Conducting “single counselling” for filling up seats in the Post Graduate Medical Courses leading to Degrees and Diplomas and the seats in DNB (Diplomate of National Board) Courses. Admission is now at an advanced stage – HELD This Court do not deem it appropriate to pass any direction for the present year. However, going by the assertions made in the response filed by the Medical Council of India, we may observe that a common counselling or single online counselling in the coming years would definitely take care of any similar grievance.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ALAPATI JYOTSNA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Dinesh Maheshwari,…

SC Allows ED to Attach Assets Of JP Morgan And Its Directors To The Extent Of Amounts Allegedly Diverted From Amrapali Homebuyers HELD We lift the embargo created vide order dated 2nd December, 2019 not to attach the property of J.P. Morgan and its Directors. We permit the Enforcement Directorate to attach the Bank Accounts of J. P. Morgan as well as any other property belonging to J.P. Morgan and its Directors to the extent required”

SC Allows ED to Attach Assets Of JP Morgan And Its Directors To The Extent Of Amounts Allegedly Diverted From Amrapali Homebuyers [Read Order] LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK 23 May 2020…

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.