Category: Constitution

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Section 141 – Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – When the petition raises complex questions of fact, which may for their determination require oral evidence to be taken, and on that account the High Court is of the view that the dispute should not appropriately be tried in a writ petition, the High Court may decline to try a petition. HELD we have no hesitation in taking the view that in the facts of the present case, the High Court should have been loath to entertain the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1 and should have relegated the respondent No. 1 to appropriate remedy

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. ATMANAND SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ.…

SC Upholds NEET; Says Uniform Exam For Admission In Medical & Dental Courses Does Not Violate Minority Rights . Held that prescribing a uniform examination of NEET for admissions in medical & dental courses did not violate rights of unaided/aided minority institutions under Articles 19(1) (g) & 30 read with 25, 26 & 29(1) of Constitution. D/APRIL 29, 2020.

SC Upholds NEET; Says Uniform Exam For Admission In Medical & Dental Courses Does Not Violate Minority Rights [Read Judgment] LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK 29 April 2020 2:59 PM In a…

[Sexual Harassment] HELD “A priori, when inaction or procrastination (intentionally or otherwise) is meted out in response to the attempt of setting the legal machinery in motion, what is put to peril is not just the individual cries for the assistance of law but also the foundational tenets of a society governed by the rule of law, thereby threatening the larger public interests. The denial of timely inquiry and by a competent forum, inevitably results in denial of justice and violation of fundamental right,”

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NISHA PRIYA BHATIA — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ. )…

Kerala Public Service Commission – HELD as to whether the maxims – actus curiae neminem gravabitand lex non cogit ad impossibiliawill come to the aid of the appellants. From the analysis of factual matrix of the case on hand, it becomes evident that there was no complete interdiction of the first Ranked List (RL-I) published on 11.9.2013 until the order of status quo was passed on 3.11.2014 by this Court. It is true that despite the order of status quo, the second Ranked List (RL-II) came to be published on 26.5.2015. According to the respondents, the order of status quo must be construed as only restraining the respondents from giving effect to the first Ranked List (RL-I) in any manner.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANEESH KUMAR V.S. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ.…

SC Upholds The Constitutional Validity Of Rule Empowering RAW To Compulsorily Retire Officers HELD We upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 135 of the RAW (Recruitment, Cadre and Services) Rules, 1975, which gives power to the Central government to voluntary retire RAW Officers whose identity is exposed or compromised.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NISHA PRIYA BHATIA — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ. )…

CONSTITUTION BENCH :: Uttar Pradesh Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 – Section 16 – Essential Commodities Act, 1955 – Section 3(2)(c) – Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 HELD By virtue of Entries 33 and 34 List III of seventh Schedule, both the Central Government as well as the State Government have the power to fix the price of sugarcane. The Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 which has been issued under Section 16 of the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 confers power upon the State Government to fix the remunerative/advised price at which sugarcane can be bought or sold which shall always be higher than the minimum price fixed by the Central Government; Section 16 of the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 is not repugnant to Section 3(2)(c) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Clause 3 of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CONSTITUTION BENCH WEST U.P. SUGAR MILLS ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Arun…

A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on Wednesday held that both the Centre and the State have concurrent powers to fix the prices of sugarcane. At the same time, the price’ fixed by the State Government for sugarcane cannot be lower than the ‘minimum price’ fixed by the centre, the Court added. Also, it is open to the States to fix the price higher than the price fixed by the Centre.

State & Centre Have Concurrent Power To Fix Sugarcane Prices; No Conflict If State’s Price Is Higher Than Centre’s ‘Minimum Price’ : SC [Read Judgment] Live Law News Network 22…