Month: July 2023

Service Matters

Employees Compensation – Death in accident – Relationship of employer and employee has not been proved before the Commissioner – Same being the basic requirement to be fulfilled for claiming compensation under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, the appellants may not be entitled to receive any compensation.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHANTABAI ANANDA JAGTAP AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. JAYRAM GANPATI JAGTAP AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal,…

Pet-coke is cheaper and burns hotter than coal and is, therefore, used as a fuel, for several industrial uses – HELD the clarification of APPCB, that as on a particular date, the production capacity was 3,30,000 MTPA was of no consequence, because it was the CTO that was considered all along, in all previous meetings – High Court rightly set aside the minutes of the meeting as well as the decision of the Central Government allocating pet-coke – Appeal dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. SANVIRA INDUSTRIES — Appellant Vs. RAIN CII CARBON (VIZAG) LTD. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta,…

Determination of sentence – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – the imposition of the “sentence undergone” criteria, amounted to an aberration, and the sentencing is for that reason, flawed – HELD the appropriate sentence would be five years rigorous imprisonment.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UGGARSAIN — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta, JJ. ) Criminal…

(IPC) – Sections 376, 452 and 506 – Rape – where there is a gap or infirmity in the prosecution case which could have been supplied or made good by examining a witness who though available is not examined, the prosecution case can be termed as suffering from a deficiency and withholding of such a material witness would oblige the court to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DAVINDER SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB — Respondent ( Before : Surya Kant and M. M. Sundresh, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…

Circumstantial evidence – they must exclude all hypotheses consistent with the innocence of the accused and inconsistent with his guilt – Incriminating circumstances were not proved beyond reasonable doubt and otherwise also the circumstance of last seen was inconclusive – Appeal dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF PUNJAB — Appellant Vs. KEWAL KRISHAN — Respondent ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and Manoj Misra, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 2128…

Service Law – Compassionate appointment – If the monthly income is less than 60% of the total emoluments (which the deceased was drawing at the time of death) less Tax @ 15% (if the income is more than Rs. 10,000/- p.m.) the case for compassionate appointment can be considered

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…

HELD In order to ensure the purity of the election process it was thought by our Constitution- makers that the responsibility to hold free and fair elections in the country should be entrusted to an independent body which would be insulated from political and/or executive interference.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SUVENDU ADHIKARI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and Manoj Misra,…

You missed

For best interest and welfare of the child are the paramount considerations when determining visitation rights A. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — The paramount consideration when determining visitation rights is the best interest and welfare of the child — This principle takes precedence over the rights of the parents — The court emphasizes that a child’s health and well-being must not be compromised in the process of adjudicating parental rights. B. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — Both parents have a right to the care, company, and affection of their child — However, this right is not absolute and must be balanced with the need to protect the child’s welfare — In this case, the court acknowledges the father’s right to visit his daughter but ensures that these visits do not negatively impact the child. C. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — Matrimonial disputes and serious allegations between parents should not impede a child’s right to the care and company of both parents — The court separates the child’s welfare from the conflict between the parents. D. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — Visitation arrangements must not cause undue hardship to the child — The court modified the High Court’s order, which required the child to travel 300 kilometers every Sunday, as it was deemed detrimental to the child’s health and well-being. E. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — The location for visitation must be convenient and in the best interest of the child — The court changed the visitation location from Karur to Madurai, which is closer to the child’s residence, in order to prioritize the child’s comfort and convenience. F. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — Supervised visitation may be necessary, especially for young children — The court directed that the father’s visits should occur in a public place, with the mother present (though at a distance), due to the child’s young age and unfamiliarity with the father.