Month: August 2021

IBC – There is no residual equity based jurisdiction in the Adjudicating Authority or the Appellate Authority while dealing with the resolution plan approved by the Committee of Creditors. These authorities can not enter into the commercial wisdom underlying the approval granted by the CoC to the resolution plan.

There is no residual equity based jurisdiction in the Adjudicating Authority or the Appellate Authority while dealing with the resolution plan approved by the Committee of Creditors. These authorities can…

Res judicata, rejection of plaint – “Since an adjudication of the plea of res judicata requires consideration of the pleadings, issues and decision in the ‘previous suit’, such a plea will be beyond the scope of Order 7 Rule 11 (d), where only the statements in the plaint will have to be perused.”

“Since an adjudication of the plea of res judicata requires consideration of the pleadings, issues and decision in the ‘previous suit’, such a plea will be beyond the scope of…

Motor Accident Compensation: Pranay Sethi Judgment Doesn’t Limit Operation Of Statute Providing Greater Benefits HELD If a statutory instrument has devised a formula which affords better or greater benefit, such statutory instrument must be allowed to operate unless the statutory instrument is otherwise found to be invalid

the Insurance Company had contended that sub-rule 3(iii) of Rule 220A of Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 is contrary to the conclusions arrived at by the Constitution Bench of…

High Court had imposed a blanket ban on the operation of DJ services in Uttar Pradesh reason that noise generated by DJ is unpleasant and obnoxious level – Appeal against same – Persons may be permitted to play the music/DJ only in accordance with law and after obtaining the requisite license/permission from the concerned authorities

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SACHIN KASHYAP AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SUSHIL CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vineet Saran and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ.…

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.