Month: February 2021

Supreme Court had taken suo motu cognizance of the problems faced by migrant labourers “who have been stranded in different parts of the country.” The Court had issued notice to the Centre and all states and union territories, directing them to submit their responses to tackle this “urgent” situation.

[COVID-19 Migrant Crisis] 90% of migrants already transported, argues SG Tushar Mehta; Supreme Court reserves order for June 9 Debayan Roy Jun 5, 2020, 4:01 PM IST The Supreme Court today…

Service Matters

Principle of `equal pay for equal work’, in relation to temporary employees (daily-wage employees, ad-hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis HELD that all the concerned temporary employees, in the present bunch of cases, would be entitled to draw wages at the minimum of the pay-scale (-at the lowest grade, in the regular pay-scale), extended to regular employees, holding the same post.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before:- Jagdish Singh Khehar and S.A. Bobde, JJ. Civil Appeal No. 213 Of 2013. D/d. 26.10.2016. State of Punjab & Ors. – Appellants Versus Jagjit Singh…

Matrimonial Law – Restitution of conjugal rights – Wronged party cannot be expected to continue with the matrimonial relationship. Husband is accordingly held entitled to dissolution of his marriage and consequently the wife’s application for restitution of conjugal rights stands dismissed

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH JOYDEEP MAJUMDAR — Appellant Vs. BHARTI JAISWAL MAJUMDAR — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. ) Civil…

Private Medical Educational Institutions) Act, 2017 – Ss 8 and 11 – Fixation of fee – it is no more res integra that the right conferred on the institutions to fix fee for professional courses is subject to regulation – It need not be reiterated that unaided professional institutions have the autonomy to decide on the fee to be charged, subject to the fee not resulting in profiteering or collection of capitation fee

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NAJIYA NEERMUNDA AND ANOTHER ETC — Appellant Vs. KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST AND OTHERS ETC — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and…

Rules 4 and 5 of Rules, 1994 as well as Rule 2(b) of Rules, 2007 does in no manner disobey the mandate of Article 243S(4), both can be complied with without any conflict between the two different provisions – Provisions of Section 5(3)(iii) (a) as well as Rules 4 and 5 of Rules, 1994 and Rule 2(b) of Rules, 2007 are not inconsistent with provisions of Article 243S.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH PARMAR SAMANTSINH UMEDSINH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and M.R. Shah,…

Admission to MBBS course in all medical educational institutions on the basis of merit list of NEET – All admissions to medical colleges shall be made only as per the centralized counselling done by the State Governments – All admissions to medical colleges shall be made only as per the centralized counselling done by the State Governments

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SARASWATI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and S.…

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.