Month: June 2023

Compassionate appointment – – the gross total income of the family per month comes to Rs. 10,323/- and the net income is Rs. 7,618/- per month – Monthly income so arrived at is not less than 60% of the total emoluments and thus, the case of the respondent cannot be considered on compassionate basis on that score – Order of compassionate appointment set-aside – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BANK OF BARODA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. BALJIT SINGH — Respondent ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and Manoj Misra, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Opportunity to participate in the proceedings and make submissions – It open for the Division Bench to ensure giving appropriate opportunity and time to the appellants to make submissions before the Division Bench and thereafter appropriate orders may be passed as the Division Bench may deem fit after hearing learned counsel for the appellants – Appeal allowed

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GREATER MALWA PARAMEDICAL COLLEGE — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah,…

Summoning as additional accused – – Once it is conceded that the appellant is a sibling of one of the named assailants, the material for forming the requisite satisfaction cannot be said to be non-existent — Special Court formed the requisite satisfaction prior to summoning the appellant to face trial with “D” —

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before: Dipankar Datta & Pankaj Mithal, JJ. Criminal Appeal No. 978 of 2022 Decided on: 02.06.2023 Jitendra Nath Mishra – Appellant Versus State of U.P. &…

Double jeopardy – Hearing to accused – Prior to carrying out further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC it is not necessary that the order accepting the final report should be reviewed, recalled or quashed – court is not obliged to hear the accused while considering an application for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before: Surya Kant & J.B. Pardiwala, JJ. SLP (Crl.) Nos. 7628-7630 of 2017 Decided on: 28.04.2023 State Through Central Bureau of Investigation – Appellant Versus Hemendhra…

In the absence of any credible eye witness to the incident and the fact that the presence of the accused appellants at the place of incident is not well established – Constrained to accord benefit of doubt to both the accused appellants – Conviction and sentence is set aside – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MOHD. MUSLIM — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (NOW UTTARAKHAND) — Respondent ( Before : V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. ) Criminal…

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.