Month: September 2022

Service Matters

In a case where it is found that the enquiry is not conducted properly and/or the same is in violation of the principles of natural justice, in that case, the Court cannot reinstate the employee as such and matter should be remanded to the Disciplinary Authority to conduct the enquiry from the stage it stood vitiated.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH THE INSPECTOR OF PANCHAYATS AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SALEM — Appellant Vs. S. ARICHANDRAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Krishna…

(CPC) – Order 43 Rule 1 – Commercial Courts Act 2015 – 13 – An intra-court appeal under the Admiralty Act to the Commercial Division of the High Court would lie from any judgment, decree or final order under the Admiralty Act or an interim order under the Admiralty Act relatable to the orders specified in Order 43, Rule 1 and not from an order under Or 10 r 1 for addition of party.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH OWNERS AND PARTIES INTERESTED IN THE VESSEL M.V. POLARIS GALAXY — Appellant Vs. BANQUE CANTONALE DE GENEVE — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee…

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 100 – Regular Second Appeal — Substantial question of law — Proper test -If the question is settled by the highest court or the general principles to be applied in determining the question are well settled and there is a mere question of applying those principles or the question raised is palpably absurd, the question would not be a substantial question of law.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before: Indira Banerjee & J.K. Maheshwari, JJ. Civil Appeal No. …… of 2022 [Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.8736 of 2016]Decided on : 22.09.2022 Chandrabhan (Deceased) through…

Unregistered agreement to sell on ten rupees stamp paper – Admissibility of — Suit for permanent injunction — Counter-claim seeking possession — Unregistered document/agreement to sell shall not be admissible in evidence – Plaintiff cleverly prayed for a relief of permanent injunction only and did not seek for the substantive relief of specific performance- Dismissed

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before: M.R. Shah & Krishna Murari, JJ. Civil Appeal No. 6733 of 2022 Decided on : 23.09.2022 Balram Singh – Appellant Versus Kelo Devi – Respondent…

You missed

Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Distribution Licence) Regulations, 2013 – Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 – Sections 3 and 4 – Electricity Act – Section 14(b) – Whether a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) developer, deemed to be a distribution licensee under the Electricity Act, is required to make an application for a distribution license and comply with the conditions set out in the Electricity Rules and Regulations. – The appeal challenges the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity’s decision to require an appellant to infuse additional capital as a condition for being identified as a deemed distribution licensee – The court questioned whether a SEZ developer is ipso facto a deemed distribution licensee, obviating the need for an application under section 14 of the Electricity Act – The appellant argued that they are automatically a deemed distribution licensee by virtue of the 2010 Notification and that the conditions imposed by TSERC were in excess of jurisdiction – The respondents argued that the appellant must comply with the 2005 and 2013 Regulations and that TSERC is empowered to impose conditions to assess credit-worthiness – The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the condition of additional capital infusion imposed by TSERC – The court reasoned that the appellant must apply to be recognized as a deemed licensee but is not subject to the additional capital requirements of regulation 12 and rule 3(2) – The court concluded that the appellant is required to make an application as per the 2013 Regulations, and the condition to infuse additional capital is not justified.