Supreme Court of India Judgements

46610 Judgements hosted as on 29/08/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Month: February 2022

Service Matters
Service

HELD constitutional courts while exercising their power of judicial review under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution would not assume the role of the appellate authority where jurisdiction is circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice

Feb 27, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GENERAL MANAGER(OPERATION-1)/ APPELLATE AUTHORITY, UCO BANK AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. KRISHNA KUMAR BHARDWAJ — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S.…

Service Matters
Service

Power of judicial review in the matters of disciplinary inquiries, exercised by the departmental/appellate authorities discharged by constitutional courts under Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution of India is well circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice.

Feb 27, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH REGIONAL MANAGER, UCO BANK AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. KRISHNA KUMAR BHARDWAJ — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ.…

Specific Performance

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Sections 21, 21(4) and 21(5) – Claim for damages in lieu of specific performance of contract – Appellant did not claim any relief for damages – Even in the appeal filed by the Appellant, no relief for damages was claimed by the Appellants – Appellant not entitled for damages – Appeal dismissed.

Feb 27, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNIVERSAL PETRO CHEMICALS LIMITED — Appellant Vs. B. P. PLC AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai, JJ.…

Service Matters
Service

Central Electricity Authority (Measures relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations, 2010 – Regulations 6, 7 and 116 -Exemption from the applicability of Regulation 6 & 7 of the Safety Regulations by the order dated 13.02.2019 can be granted only in favour of persons who were employed with the KSEBL on the date of the formulation of the transfer scheme and such of those employees who have joined service after 31.10.2013 were not entitled to such an exemption.

Feb 27, 2022 sclaw

Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai, JJ. ) Civil Appeal Nos. 1498-1500 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Civil)…

Service Matters
Service

Service Law – Promotion – considering Rule 14, it can be seen that the bar was against teachers who have obtained B.A./B.Sc./B.Ed degree simultaneously during the same academic year – In the present case it cannot be said that the appellant obtained the degree of B.A. (English) and M.A. (Tamil) during the same academic year

Feb 27, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH A. DHARMARAJ — Appellant Vs. THE CHIEF EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PUDUKKOTTAI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M. R. Shah and B. V. Nagarathna,…

Constitution

Re-auction – re-auction of the entire properties by fixing the upset price higher than what has been fixed earlier, the auction purchaser who purchased the property in the year 1998- Valuation as on the date of auction is the relevant consideration and not the value after so many years

Feb 27, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH K. KUMARA GUPTA — Appellant Vs. SRI MARKENDAYA AND SRI OMKARESWARA SWAMY TEMPLE AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V.…

Constitution

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 15(1) and 19(1)(g) – Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 – Section 33(1)(w)(i) and 33(w)(ii) and 162(1) – Licensing and Performance for Public Amusement including Cabaret Performance, Melas and Tamashas Rules, 1960 – Rules 108A, 109, 118, 207 and 209- Condition limiting female performers in bars – Restriction directly transgresses Article 15(1) and Article 19(1)(g)-

Feb 27, 2022 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HOTEL PRIYA, A PROPRIETORSHIP — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and S. Ravindra Bhat,…

You missed

Consumer

The flat was purchased for the personal use of one of its directors and his family — The appellant created confusion by double allotment of the flat and unfairly forfeited the deposited amount —The NCDRC ruled in favor of the respondent, directing the appellant to refund the deposited amount with interest — The Supreme Court upheld this decision —The respondent was considered a consumer as the flat was for personal use — The appellant’s actions were deemed deficient and unfair due to the double allotment and premature cancellation —

Aug 29, 2024 sclaw
Anticipatory Bail Bail Granted

Anticipatory bail — Cancellation of — The appellant had his anticipatory bail cancelled without notice due to failure to plant saplings —Whether the cancellation of anticipatory bail without notice was justified The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, granting additional time to plant 500 trees —The anticipatory bail granted to is revived, and he must deposit the cost of saplings with the Forest authorities.

Aug 29, 2024 sclaw
Anticipatory Bail Bail Granted

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420 and 34 — Nature of Offence —The Court’s decision to grant bail in a case involving Sections 420 and 34 IPC indicates that while these sections pertain to serious offenses (cheating and criminal conspiracy, respectively), bail may still be granted if the circumstances of the case, such as the nature of the transaction and the relationship between the parties, warrant it.

Aug 29, 2024 sclaw
Tenders & Contracts

Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) — PPA between Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited, and the Hirehalli Solar Power Project LLP — The respondent sought an extension of the scheduled commissioning date (SCD) under the force majeure clause of the PPA due to delays in obtaining necessary approvals and licenses —The Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (KERC) rejected the force majeure claim, but the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) reversed the decision, finding that the delay was not attributable to the respondent and that the force majeure clause was applicable — The Supreme Court agreed with the APTEL’s findings and dismissed the appeals — The court also rejected the appellant’s contention that the APTEL’s direction to pay late payment surcharge to the respondent was unjustified, as it was rooted in the PPA and in furtherance of the intention of the parties.

Aug 29, 2024 sclaw