Month: November 2021

Civil Law – Injunction – No injunction could have been granted without impleading and without giving an opportunity of being heard – High Court granting injunction with respect to 1/7th share in the total plaint schedule properties which has been passed without giving an opportunity of being heard to the appellants and without impleading them as party-defendants in the suit by learned trial Court, is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside – Appeal allowed

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ACQUA BOREWELL PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. SWAYAM PRABHA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Civil…

Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 – Sections 14A and 25 – Jurisdiction of Civil Court — Expression “validity of the decision or the Order” in Section 25 of the Act, would not include a case where, despite a dispute projected, that there was no landlord-tenant relationship, the Authority decides the said issue in the course of the Order of Eviction, under Section 14A, after brushing aside the tenant’s objection relating to his position, viz., that he is not a tenant. In such a situation, the validity is tied-up with the fundamental aspect of absence of power of the Authority to decide on the question of landlord-tenant relationship.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ASSA SINGH (D) BY LRS. — Appellant Vs. SHANTI PARSHAD(D) BY LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : K.M Joseph and S. Ravindra…

Service Matters

Service Code does not stipulate any time period within which the appeal may be preferred to the Board of Directors whose decision is to be final, but it is well settled that no time does not mean any time – Challenge to the order of dismissal from service by way of appeal was after four years and five months, which is certainly highly belated and beyond justifiable time – Without satisfactory explanation justifying the delay, it is difficult to hold that the appeal was preferred within a reasonable time – Order of dismissal uphold.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE CHAIRMAN, STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M.J. JAMES — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Sanjiv Khanna,…

Fixing notional income at Rs.15,000/- per annum for non-earning members is not just and reasonable, Schedule-II is not yet amended – It appropriate to take notional income of the deceased at Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) per annum. Accordingly, when the notional income is multiplied with applicable multiplier ’15’, as prescribed in Schedule-II for the claims under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KURVAN ANSARI ALIAS KURVAN ALI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SHYAM KISHORE MURMU AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : R. Subhash Reddy and…

Service Matters

Mr. Dinkar Gupta was appointed as Director General of Punjab Police – HELD when a person takes a chance and participates, thereafter he cannot, because the result is unpalatable, turn around to contend that the process was unfair or the selection committee was not properly constituted. In case where the petitioner had appeared at an open interview, as the Appellant too had taken a calculated chance in spite of the stakes, that too without protest, and then has belatedly raised the plea of bias and prejudice only when he was not recommended.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MOHD. MUSTAFA — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, Sanjiv Khanna and B.R. Gavai, JJ.…

Held, Merely having an explicit clause may not be sufficient to make time the essence of the contract – As the contract was spread over a long tenure, the intention of the parties to provide for extensions surely reinforces the fact that timely performance was necessary – Contractual clauses having extension procedure and imposition of liquidated damages, are good indicators that ‘time was not the essence of the contract’

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH WELSPUN SPECIALTY SOLUTIONS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS REMI METALS GUJARAT LIMITED) — Appellant Vs. OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED — Respondent ( Before…

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 34 and 37 – Arbitration Appeal – Jurisdiction of High Court – Jurisdiction in a first appeal arising out of a decree in a civil suit is distinct from the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 37 of the 1996 Act arising from the disposal of a petition challenging an arbitral award under Section 34 of the 1996 Act

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PUNJAB STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M/S RAMESH KUMAR AND COMPANY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr.…

You missed