Supreme Court of India Judgements

46420 Judgements hosted as on 27/04/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Compassionate Appointment

Compassionate Appointment

Appointment on compassionate grounds is not automatic, but subject to strict scrutiny of various parameters including the financial position of the family, the economic dependence of the family upon the deceased employee and the avocation of the other members of the family – Therefore, no one can claim to have a vested right for appointment on compassionate grounds – Application of the respondent for compassionate appointment shall stand dismissed.

Dec 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (PRIMARY) AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. BHEEMESH ALIAS BHEEMAPPA — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and…

Compassionate Appointment

Once it is proved that in spite of the death of the breadwinner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no need to make appointment on compassionate ground at the cost of the interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution

Nov 21, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED — Appellant Vs. GOURI DEVI — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Compassionate Appointment

Compassionate Appointment–Death not claimed to be due to accident–Settlement providing that the death of the bread earner should have occurred `due to an accident arising out of and in course of employment’, as in this case, the employee had not died due to an accident–His dependents not entitled to appointment.

Jun 13, 2021 sclaw

2009(2) LAW HERALD (SC) 751 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph Civil Appeal No. 6159 of 2008…

Compassionate Appointment

“….. that there cannot be any inherent right to compassionate appointment, it is a right based on certain criteria, especially to provide succor to a needy family. This has to be in terms of the applicable policy as existing on the date of demise, unless a subsequent policy is made applicable retrospectively.” HELD held that a ‘permanent’ classification does not amount to regularisation.

Sep 30, 2020 sclaw

There cannot be any inherent right to compassionate appointment, the Supreme Court has reiterated in a judgment delivered on Tuesday. The court allowed an appeal filed by the State of…

Compassionate Appointment

S C O I  Directs Compassionate Appointment In 21 Yrs Old Case, HELD Section 108 Evidence Act, stipulates that when the question is whether a man is alive or dead, and it is proved that he has not been heard of for seven years by those who would naturally have heard of him if he had been alive, the burden of proving that he is alive is shifted to the person who affirms it.

Jul 20, 2020 sclaw

   Section 108 stipulates that when the question is whether a man is alive or dead, and it is proved that he has not been heard of for seven years…

Compassionate Appointment

Compassionate Appointment–If there is no Scheme providing compassionate appointment , any appointment on such ground would be illegal. Compassionate Appointment–Such appointment cannot be granted to a person other than those for whose benefit the exception has been carved out.

Jun 4, 2017 sclaw

  2007(4) LAW HERALD (SC) 3141 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju Civil Appeal No. 429 of…

Service Matters
Compassionate Appointment

Compassionate Appointment–Compassionate appointment can be given only in terms of the Scheme, executive instructions, rules etc framed by the Employer in this regard. Compassionate Appointment–Even hardship of the dependent does not entitle him to claim compassionate appointment de hors the Scheme or the statutory provisions as the case may be.

Jun 4, 2017 sclaw

2007(4) LAW HERALD (SC) 3137 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.K. Sema The Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.Sudershan Reddy Civil Appeal No. 743 of 2007…

You missed

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 394 read with Section 397 – Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery – The appellant was convicted for offences under Sections 394 and 397 of the IPC, sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine, based on the recovery of stolen items and identification by the complainant – The appeal challenges the High Court’s dismissal of the appellant’s appeal against the trial court’s conviction and sentence – The appellant contested the identification of the stolen items and the legality of the disclosure statement used to convict him – The State supported the trial court’s findings, emphasizing the recovery of stolen items and the identification process – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, acquitted the appellant, and ordered release, citing insufficient evidence to affirm guilt – The Court’s reasoning focused on the improper proof of the disclosure memo and the questionable identification of the stolen items by the complainant – The conclusion was that the prosecution failed to connect the appellant with the crime conclusively.

Apr 27, 2024 sclaw
State Laws

M.P. Excise Act, 1915 – The case involves the applicability of a rule for imposing penalties related to the liquor license period of 2009-10 and whether the old or substituted rule should apply – The main issue is whether the penalty should be based on the rule in place during the violation (2009-10) or the substituted rule from 2011, which reduced the penalty – The appellant argues for the application of the substituted rule, which imposes a lower penalty, as the old rule was repealed – The State contends that the old rule should apply to transactions from 2009-10, despite the substitution – The Supreme Court accepted the appellant’s contention, applying the substituted rule to pending proceedings – The Court reasoned that the purpose of the amendment was to balance the offence and penalty, and not applying the substituted rule would not serve public interest – The Court distinguished between the effects of repeal and substitution of rules, emphasizing that the substituted rule should apply from the date of substitution – The appeals were allowed, setting aside the High Court’s judgment, and the penalty was determined based on the substituted rule from 2011.

Apr 27, 2024 sclaw
I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 236 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Sections 190, 193 and 200 – The appeal challenges a High Court judgment regarding a complaint filed by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India against the Ex-Directors of M/s. SBM Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. for offences under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – The primary issue is whether the Special Court established under Chapter XXVIII of the Companies Act, 2013 has jurisdiction to try offences under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India argued that the High Court erred in quashing the proceedings and that offences under the Code should be tried by the Special Court – The respondents contended that the High Court’s judgment was correct and that the Special Court did not have jurisdiction to try the complaint – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Special Court presided by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge has jurisdiction to try the complaint under the Code – The Court reasoned that the reference to the Special Court in Section 236(1) of the Code is a ‘legislation by incorporation’ and not a ‘legislation by reference’, meaning subsequent amendments to the Companies Act do not affect the Code – The Court applied principles from previous judgments to determine that the case is one of ‘legislation by incorporation’ – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and remitted the matter to the High Court for consideration on merits. The judicial opinion emphasizes the importance of legislative intent and the distinction between ‘legislation by incorporation’ and ‘legislation by reference’ in determining jurisdiction.

Apr 27, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 143, 147, 148, 506(2) and 302 read with Section 149 – The appellants were convicted for the murder and sentenced to life imprisonment by the High Court, reversing their earlier acquittal by the trial court – The main issue was the reliability of eyewitness testimonies and the admissibility of evidence, such as the FIR and recovery of weapons – The appellants argued that the High Court erred in reversing the acquittal, contending that the eyewitnesses were unreliable and the FIR was a post-investigation document – The State contended that the eyewitness testimonies were credible and the FIR was lodged promptly without undue delay – The Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s decision, acquitted the appellants, and discharged their bail bonds – The Court found inconsistencies in the eyewitness accounts and issues with the FIR and recovery of weapons – The Court applied principles regarding the appellate court’s power in appeals against acquittal, emphasizing the need for the High Court to find perversity or illegality in the trial court’s judgment to reverse an acquittal – The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court’s judgment was flawed and restored the trial court’s acquittal of the appellants.

Apr 27, 2024 sclaw