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

“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.