Month: March 2023

Service Matters

Orissa Khadi and Village Industries Board Regulations, 1960 – Under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, Court cannot issue directions in violation of the statutory provisions; and sympathy or sentiment, by itself, cannot be a ground for passing an order beyond and contrary to the legal rights

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF ORISSA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. ORISSA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD KARMACHARI SANGH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh…

Proposal to convert the subject land from leasehold to freehold as per the policy- policy in question cannot be applied in relation to the subject land. Therefore, we find no necessity to delve further into the other issues raised on behalf of the respondent No. 2 that it has no policy to grant freehold rights in its allotments. Suffice it would be to say for the present purpose that the claim of the petitioner for freehold rights in relation to the subject land cannot be accepted.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHASIN INFOTECH AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LTD. — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari and J.K.…

Service Matters

Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 – Constitution Article 243Q(2) – protects their service rendered by them in the local authority before the appointed day and further provides that it shall be considered as service rendered in the Municipal Corporation itself. Given the existence of this unambiguous provision, the only logical conclusion is that the service rendered by Respondent Nos. 5 to 79 in the ZP has to be treated as service rendered in the PMC. Such service, therefore, has to be counted towards the determination of their seniority as well.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MAHARASHTRA RAJYA PADVIDHAR PRATHAMIK SHIKSHAK VA KENDRA PRAMUKH SABHA — Appellant Vs. PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Surya Kant…

CrPC, Sec 406, – Article 139A of the Constitution – Order 39 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – HELD phrase party interested under Section 406(2) of the CrPC, the Petitioner, being the real brother of the Deceased, is vitally interested in a fair trial – challenge to the locus standi of the Petitioner is thus rejected. there is no legal necessity to transfer the trial outside the State of West Bengal and the apprehensions of the Petitioner, some of which are indeed genuine, can be effectively redressed by issuing appropriate directions.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AFJAL ALI SHA @ ABJAL SHAUKAT SHA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Surya Kant and…

Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 Section 40 – Declaration of Wild Life Stock Rules, 2003. – High Court has rightly observed that the application submitted by the appellant herein which was made beyond the period prescribed under Rule 4(2) was liable to be rejected and was rightly rejected by the appropriate authority/Chief Wild Life Warden.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VISHALAKSHI AMMA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Manoj Misra, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Service Matters

HELD Home Guards shall be entitled to the periodical rise which may be available to the Police personnel of the State and the DCA to be paid to the Home Guards be periodically increased taking into consideration the minimum of the pay to which the Police personnel of the State are entitled considering periodical increase from time to time. The present appeals stand disposed in terms of the above.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRAKASH KUMAR JENA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF ODISHA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and M.M. Sundresh,…

HELD the learned Single Judge, therefore, exceeded in its jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act quashing and setting aside the well-reasoned award passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal on rejecting Claim Nos.33 and 34, which the Division Bench of the High Court has wrongly affirmed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH INDIAN RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. M/S NATIONAL BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and M.M. Sundresh,…

HELD High Court has committed a very serious error in setting aside the consent award on the aforesaid ground. The consent award under Section 11 of the Act, 1894 ought not to have been set aside in the manner in which it is set aside. The High Court has not at all properly appreciated and considered the conduct on the part of the land owner

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. JAYANTIBHAI ISHWARBHAI PATEL — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Manoj Misra, JJ. ) Civil…

HELD that on approval of a scheme by the BIFR under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, the unsecured creditors has an option not to accept the scaling down value of its dues and to wait till the rehabilitation scheme of the sick company has worked itself out with an option to recover the debt with interest post such rehabilitation is erroneous and contrary to the scheme of SICA, 1985

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MODI RUBBER LIMITED — Appellant Vs. CONTINENTAL CARBON INDIA LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

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.