Month: November 2021

Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and Minimum Wages (Central) Rules, 1950 – it is crystal clear that the complaint does not satisfy the mandate of sub-section (1) to Section 22C of the Act as there are no assertions or averments that the appellant before this Court was in-charge of and responsible to the company M/s. Writer Safeguard Pvt. Ltd. in the manner as interpreted by this CourtThe proviso to sub-section (1) in the present case would not apply. It is an exception that would be applicable and come into operation only when the conditions of sub-section (1) to Section 22C are satisfied. Notably, in the absence of any specific averment, the prosecution in the present case does not and cannot rely on Section 22C(2) of the Act.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DAYLE DE’SOUZA — Appellant Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA THROUGH DEPUTY CHIEF LABOUR COMMISSIONER (C) AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : R. Subhash Reddy…

Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 – Section 5(1)(d) r/w 5(2) – Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 – Section 120B – – Merely because the offence of the conspiracy may be involved, investigation into the substantive offence, i.e., in the present case, offence under the PC Act which is cognizable is not required to await a sanction from the Magistrate, as that would lead to a considerable delay and affect the investigation and it will derail the investigation – Therefore, the High Court has erred in quashing the criminal proceedings on the ground that as the offence under Section 120B which is a non-cognizable, prior sanction as required under Section 155 of J&K Cr.P.C. is not obtained – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. DR. SALEEM UR REHMAN — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and A.S.…

Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 – Sections 3 and 8 – Forest lands – Settlement of disputes – Respondent successfully urged before the High Court that what was demarcated was only 100 hectares and the others were not demarcated since they were cultivated – This was borne out by the final report – Possession with respect to 100 hectares of uncultivated forest lands was also covered by draft statement of land furnished to the Board in proceedings under the KLR Act – Appeal dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M/S POPULAR ESTATES (NOW DISSOLVED) AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and S.…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302 and 201 – Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Sections 15A, 15A(3) and 15A(5) – Murder – Cancellation of bail – Notice issued to victim under sub-sections (3) and (5) of Section 15A are mandatory in nature – In the present case, it is evident that the right to notice and to be heard were violated -Bail cancelled – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HARIRAM BHAMBHI — Appellant Vs. SATYANARAYAN AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Service Matters

University Grants Commission Act, 1956 – Section 12(b) – Abolition of post – Appeal against – University had the power to abolish any department but not the post sanctioned under the Tenth Plan by the UGC – Post held by the appellant was sanctioned and financially supported by the UGC under the Tenth Plan, and the same would not have been automatically abolished at the end of the Plan – Termination of services of the appellant was illegal and not in accordance with law – Appeal allowed

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH DR. SUSHIL KUMAR TRIPATHI — Appellant Vs. JAGADGURU RAM BHADRACHARYA HANDICAPPED UNIVERSITY AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Vikram…

Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 – The Central Government must forthwith notify the norms and standards of pupil­teacher ratio for special schools and also separate norms for special teachers who alone can impart education and training to CwSN in the general schools; and until such time, as a stopgap arrangement adopt the recommendations made by the State Commissioner, NCT of Delhi in the case of Ms. Reshma Parveen vs. The Director, Directorate of Education, Decided on 31.12.2019 in Case No. 824/1014/2019/04/9072­84, reproduced in paragraph 51

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH RAJNEESH KUMAR PANDEY AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and C.T.…

Waqf Act, 1995 – Sections 83 and 85 – Suit for permanent injunction – Bar of jurisdiction of civil court – to allow the plaintiff to ignore the Waqf Tribunal and to seek a decree of permanent injunction and mandatory injunction from a civil court, would be ignore the mandate of section 83 and 85 which speak of any dispute, question or other matter relating to a waqf or a waqf property – Therefore, a question as to the nature of the waqf and whether the plaintiff is a beneficiary of the waqf, has also arisen in this case – This question has necessarily to be decided by the Tribunal and not the civil court – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RASHID WALI BEG — Appellant Vs. FARID PINDARI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 300 and 304-II – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – The incident was stated to have occurred when initially there was an exchange of words between the ladies which then got converted into an incident where blows were exchanged – matter would be covered by Exception fourthly to Section 300 IPC and as such, the crime in question would not be “murder” but “culpable homicide not amounting to murder” – All the accused would be principally guilty of the offences under Section 304-II and Section 304-II read with Section 149 of the IPC.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SITA RAM AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and Bela M.…

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.