Month: March 2021

Insolvency Process – Reference to arbitration – Where the petition under Section 7 of IB Code is yet to be admitted and, in such proceedings, if an application under Section 8 of the Act, 1996 is filed, the Adjudicating Authority is duty bound to first decide the application under Section 7 of the IB Code

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH INDUS BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. KOTAK INDIA VENTURE (OFFSHORE) FUND (EARLIER KNOWN AS KOTAK INDIA VENTURE LIMITED) AND OTHERS — Respondent (…

Only contradictions in material particulars and not minor contradictions can be a ground to discredit the testimony of the witnesses – It is clear that the assault was intentional which resulted in the death of the deceased and all accused had a common object, as such the High Court has rightly convicted the accused for offence punishable under Section 302/149, IPC etc.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJENDRA @ RAJAPPA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ.…

Mohd. Mukhtar Ansari case – It is a well settled principle of law that the Statute must be interpreted to advance the cause of the Statute and not to defeat the same – State Government being a prosecuting agency in the Criminal Administration, is vitally interested in such administration – Petition under section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is maintainable.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH — Appellant Vs. JAIL SUPERINTENDENT (ROPAR) AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ.…

Service Matters

Appellant was not entitled to claim benefit of military service for purpose of seniority for appointment to Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch) since the benefit of Rule 4(1) of 1972 Rules was not continued in 1982 Rules. His seniority was to be governed by statutory rules applicable after the enforcement of 1982 Rules – Appeal dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH JAGMOHAN SINGH DHILLON ETC.ETC. — Appellant Vs. SATWANT SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, S. Abdul Nazeer and Hemant Gupta,…

Facebook post read in its entirety pleads for equality of non-tribals in the State of Meghalaya – There was no intention on the part of the Appellant to promote class/community hatred – As there is no attempt made by the Appellant to incite people belonging to a community to indulge in any violence, the basic ingredients of the offence under Sections 153 A and 505 (1) (c) have not been made out – Appeal allowed

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PATRICIA MUKHIM — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ. )…

Service Matters

In the present case, 440 vacancies were advertised; they were to be considered together; obviously, in respect of older vacancies which arose for previous years, the qualifications applicable for the vacancy years were applicable – None of the appellants disputed that they were ineligible in terms of the old rules, as they did not hold the requisite intermediate qualifications in the science stream – Appellants’ contention, in this regard too, consequently fails – Appeal dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUMAN DEVI AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra Bhat,…

Construction of Road over Bridges – Felling of trees – As per the Report of the Expert Committee submitted, primarily, about 50 trees have already been felled and potentially another 306 trees are to be felled. As per the Report, many of the trees can be called ‘historical trees’ ,

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ASSOCIATION FOR PROTECTION OF DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S.A.…

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.