Month: August 2021

Service Matters

Caste Certificate Rules – High Court grossly erred in failing to appreciate that the appellant held a valid caste certificate from the competent authority in the State of Maharashtra under Rule 6(1)(a) in Form 10 in accordance with the prescribed procedure, the genuineness and validity of which was not in question before it – Furthermore, the appellant was not seeking the reserved status for the purpose of education or employment

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ARUNA — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Navin Sinha and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ. ) Civil…

Service Matters

Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointments HELD Determination of Seniority – Services rendered by the ad hoc appointees prior to their regularisation as per the 1979 Rules shall not be counted for the purpose of seniority, vis-à-vis, the direct recruits who were appointed prior to 1989 and they are not entitled to seniority from the date of their initial appointment in the year 1985.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RASHI MANI MISHRA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and…

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Bogus donation – Cancellation of Trust Registration – HELD Donations were received by way of cheques out of which substantial money was ploughed back or returned to the donors in cash – The facts thus clearly show that those were bogus donations

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA — Appellant Vs. BATANAGAR EDUCATION AND RESEARCH TRUST — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Ajay…

Circumstantial evidence – Last seen theory – If the accused fails to offer any plausible explanation, an adverse inference can be drawn against the accused – HELD the Courts have to not only consider the factum of last seen, but also have to keep in mind the circumstances that preceded and followed from the point of the deceased being so last seen in the presence of the accused.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SURAJDEO MAHTO AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI, Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose,…

Insecticides Act, 1968 – Ss 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 33, 29 – (CrPC) – Ss 200 & 202 – Misbranding HELD Proviso to Sec 200 of Cr PC, the Magistrate, while taking cognizance, need not record statement of such public servant, who has filed the complaint in discharge of his official duty – Further, by virtue of Section 293 of Cr PC, report of the Government Scientific Expert is, per se, admissible in evidence – Cr PC itself provides for exemption from examination of such witnesses, when the complaint is filed by a public servant

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. CHEMINOVA INDIA LTD AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Navin Sinha and R. Subhash…

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 17(2) – Award of Emergency Arbitrator – It is wholly incorrect to say that Section 17(1) of the Act would exclude an Emergency Arbitrator’s orders. HELD A party cannot, after it participates in an Emergency Award proceeding, having agreed to institutional rules made in that regard, that thereafter it will not be bound by an Emergency Arbitrator’s ruling.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AMAZON.COM NV INVESTMENT HOLDINGS LLC — Appellant Vs. FUTURE RETAIL LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R.F. Nariman and B.R. Gavai, JJ.…

A judgment and/or decree for money in favour of the Financial Creditor, passed by the DRT, or any other Tribunal or Court, or the issuance of a Certificate of Recovery in favour of the Financial Creditor, would give rise to a fresh cause of action for the Financial Creditor, to initiate proceedings under Section 7 of the IBC

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DENA BANK (NOW BANK OF BARODA) — Appellant Vs. C. SHIVAKUMAR REDDY AND ANR. — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian,…

Expunction of remarks against Advocate- Comments were unnecessary for the decision of the Court – Held that the offending remarks should be recalled to avoid any future harm to the Appellant ‘s reputation or his work as a member of the Bar – Order expunction of the extracted remarks in judgement – Appeal disposed of.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NEERAJ GARG — Appellant Vs. SARITA RANI AND ORS. ETC — Respondent ( Before : Rohinton Fali Nariman and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. ) Civil…

You missed