Month: January 2021

As per guidance note dated 11.11.2020 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Women and Child Development, all States/Union Territories who have not yet opened Anganwadi Centres shall take a decision to open Anganwadi Centres on or before 31.01.2021 situated outside the containment zone.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH DIPIKA JAGATRAM SAHANI — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and M.R. Shah,…

Illegal Gratification – Reduction in sentence – Accused is a senior citizen aged about 70 years and already dismissed from service – Sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment as imposed by the Special Court, confirmed by the High Court, is reduced to one year and one month rigorous imprisonment – Appeal partly allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH S. SUNDARA KUMAR — Appellant Vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU — Respondent ( Before…

Appellant the importer of goods & cleared them for home consumption, the natural consequence of raising of such debit notes on the end-buyers situated in different States and movement of goods to such end-buyers would be to take these transactions in the category of inter-State sales in terms of Section 3(a) of the CST Act – Appellant was not entitled to the exemption of Section 5(2) of the CST Act

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S VELLANKI FRAME WORKS — Appellant Vs. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, VISAKHAPATNAM — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ )…

Construction of the Hotel-cum-Restaurant structure in the Bus Stand Complex is illegal and constitutes a brazen violation of law – Permission which was granted by MOEF was only for construction of a ‘parking place’ at McLeod Ganj – Similarly, the permission granted for constructing a ‘bus stand’ in the same area

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH HIMACHAL PRADESH BUS STAND MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (HPBSM&DA) — Appellant Vs. THE CENTRAL EMPOWERED COMMITTEE ETC. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before :…

Deduction – Co-operative Societies – Limited object of section 80P(4) is to exclude co-operative banks that function at par with other commercial banks HELD the primary object of which is to provide financial accommodation to its members for agricultural purposes or for purposes connected with agricultural activities.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH THE MAVILAYI SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CALICUT AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : R.…

Common intention is evident from the accused persons coming to the lands of PW1 armed and intimidating him to return the lands followed by assault upon him and those who came to his rescue HELD Number and nature of hard blunt injuries on the two deceased make it apparent that the assailants were more than one

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ASHARAM TIWARI — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : R.F. Nariman and Navin Sinha, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No…….of…

Service Matters

Candidates who have ranked lower in the 2019 selection and were unable to obtain appointments cannot appropriate the vacancies of a subsequent year to themselves – To allow such a claim would be an egregious legal and constitutional error – Judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH HIGH COURT OF KERALA — Appellant Vs. RESHMA A. AND OTHERS ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Indira Banerjee,…

Apartment Buyer’s Agreement – Unfair trade practice – Incorporation of such one-sided and unreasonable clauses in the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement constitutes an unfair trade practice under Section 2(1) (r) of the C P A. HELD intent is clear that a choice or discretion is given to the allottee whether he wishes to initiate appropriate proceedings under the CP Act or file an application under the RERA Act.

1/37 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH IREO GRACE REALTECH PVT. LTD — Appellant Vs. ABHISHEK KHANNA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra…

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.