Supreme Court of India Judgements

46468 Judgements hosted as on 12/05/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Service

Service Matters
Service

Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service (Recruitment, Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2001 – Rules 11, 14 and 30 – Judicial Service – Change of Selection criteria – Selection process of District Judge Cadre – Part of the Full Court Resolution of the Jharkhand High Court dated 23.03.2023 by which it was decided that only those candidates who have secured at least 50% marks in aggregate shall be qualified for appointment to the post of District Judge is quashed – Writ petitions allowed.

Feb 18, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUSHIL KUMAR PANDEY AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay…

Service Matters
Service

CSIR’s argument that respondent no. 1 was not graded as ‘Good’ whereas respondent nos. 2 & 3 were graded as ‘Very Good’ was irrelevant because the promotion of respondent nos. 2 & 3 had been interfered with by the High Court holding them to be ineligible for the post – In view of the above facts, the Court held that the action of the appellant-CSIR in denying promotion to respondent no. 1 upon the post of Under Secretary was rightly reversed by the High Court.

Feb 4, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DIRECTOR GENERAL, COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH(CSIR) — Appellant Vs. J.K. PRASHAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and…

Service Matters
Service

Assam Police Act, 2007 – Section 14(2) – Assam Police Manual – Rule 63(iii) – Deputy Commissioner would not be competent to assess the overall performance of Superintendent of Police (SP) – Rule 63(iii) of Assam Police Manual invalid on the ground that it is in direct conflict with Section 14(2) of the Assam Police Act, 2007

Jan 21, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. BINOD KUMAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar, JJ.…

Service Matters
Service

Service Law – Recovery of personal/promotional pay scale benefits – Benefit of a personal/promotional pay scale was granted to Appellants/Ayurvedic Medical Officers by the State of Uttarakhand – Benefit was withdrawn under a subsequent decision of the State of Uttarakhand – By the order dated 8th November 2006, the personal time-bound pay scale was granted to the appellants, subject to the condition that if the Government takes any decision to the contrary, the amount will be recovered from the salary of the concerned medical officers – Recovery order upheld – Appeal dismissed.

Jan 14, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DR. BALBIR SINGH BHANDARI — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal,…

Service Matters
Service

The state argued the forgery was serious misconduct and made appointments illegal – The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and ruled that the appellants were entitled to continue in their service – The court found no evidence of wrongdoing by the Appellants and directed the State to pay the appellants’ salaries with arrears and continue their service.

Jan 11, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RADHEY SHYAM YADAV AND ANOTHER ETC — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and K.V. Viswanathan,…

Constitution Service

Article 229 of the Constitution does not grant the Chief Justice the power to make rules regarding the post-retiral benefits of former judges – The State Government has the legislative power to make laws regarding the post-retiral benefits of its employees, including former High Court judges.

Jan 3, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT JUDGES AT ALLAHABAD AND OTHERS —…

Service Matters
Service

The appellant had filled in 08.12.1997 as his date of birth, while his actual date of birth is 18.12.1997 – SCOI allowed the appeal, holding that the error in the application form was a trivial error and did not justify the cancellation of the appellant’s candidature: – The Supreme Court’s reasoning is based on the following principles: a. De minimis non curat lex – The law does not concern itself with trifles. b. Candidacy cancellation for trivial errors is not justified. c. No prejudice caused to the state due to the error.

Jan 3, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VASHIST NARAYAN KUMAR — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. )…

Service Matters
Service

HELD it may be recorded here that subsequent to date, there was a chargesheet issued against the Respondent and ultimately, the entire proceedings came to be dropped on 11.12.2019. Since the eligibility conditions in Rule 9 (1)(a)(iii), the validity of which is not under challenge before us, requires us to limit our inquiry into the question of eligibility as on date of consideration, what happens after that becomes insignificant to the inquiry. – In the background of facts and position of law analysed here in, it has to be concluded that as on the date of consideration, disciplinary action was contemplated against the writ petitioner Dinesh Singh, and therefore he was rightly held to be ineligible for selection of his name in Register A-1.

Dec 17, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. DINESH SINGH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.M. Sundresh and Aravind Kumar, JJ. )…

Service Matters
Service

Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 – Sections 14 and 31(1) – Formation of policy – Jurisdiction – A Tribunal functioning within the strict boundaries of the governing legislation, would not have the power to direct the formation of a policy – it cannot be questioned that disputes in respect of promotions and/or filling up of vacancies is within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, it cannot direct those responsible for making policy, to make a policy in a particular manner.

Dec 17, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. AIR COMMODORE NK SHARMA (17038) ADM/LGL — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay…

You missed

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 376(2)(g) and 506(1) – Tamil Nadu Prevention of Women Harassment Act, 1998 – Section 4 – Gang Rape – The victim’s testimony, along with her mother and aunt’s statements, was consistent with the initial complaint and corroborated by medical evidence – The defense argued that the long gap between the victim’s examination-in-chief and cross-examination led to inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies – Whether the long gap between the victim’s examination-in-chief and cross-examination led to inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies – The inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies were not significant and did not affect the overall credibility of the evidence – The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the appellant for gang rape and related charges – The court rejected the defense’s argument that the long gap between the victim’s examination-in-chief and cross-examination led to inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies – The court found that the evidence presented was sufficient to convict the appellant for gang rape and related charges – The Supreme Court found that the evidence presented was sufficient to convict the appellant and rejected the defence’s arguments regarding inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies.

May 12, 2024 sclaw
Limitation

Dismissal of Civil Suit – Condonation of delay – Standing to file an application – The court clarified that only parties to a suit or those who have accrued a right in the lis can file an application for condonation of delay in filing an application for restoration of the suit. A stranger to the proceedings cannot file such an application.

May 12, 2024 sclaw
Limitation

Limitation Act, 1963 – Haryana Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1979 – Section 3(1)(b) – State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 – Section 29 – The appeals arise from a High Court judgment regarding the recovery of time-barred debts under the Act, 1979, and the Act, 1951 – The main issue is whether a debt time-barred under the Limitation Act can be recovered using the aforementioned Acts – The appellants argued that time-barred debts cannot be recovered under the Recovery of Dues Act, citing the precedent set in V.R. Kalliyanikutty – The respondents argued that the Recovery of Dues Act and the State Financial Corporations Act allow for time-barred debt recovery, as they only bar the remedy, not the right – The court examined whether the Recovery of Dues Act creates a new right for creditors and allows for time-barred debt recovery – The court discussed the distinction between a debt and the right of action for its recovery, noting that the statute of limitation bars the latter but not the former – The court concluded that the Recovery of Dues Act and the State Financial Corporations Act provide an alternative mechanism for recovering debts, even if they are time-barred – Matter needs to be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India to constitute an appropriate three-judge bench.

May 12, 2024 sclaw
Consumer

Consumer Law – Policy Claim – The appellants, family of the deceased, filed a complaint after the LIC repudiated their claim on a policy following the policyholder’s accidental death – The main issue was whether there was a concluded contract between the deceased and LIC at the time of his death, which would obligate LIC to pay the insurance benefits – The appellants argued that LIC had accepted the first premium and issued a receipt, thereby assuming risk and concluding the contract before the policyholder’s death – LIC contended that the policy was not communicated to the deceased and was blocked due to his demise, implying no concluded contract existed – The Supreme Court set aside the NCDRC’s order, restored the District Forum’s order in favor of the appellants, and directed LIC to pay the insurance benefits as per the policy terms – The Court found clear presumption of acceptance of the policy by LIC, as the first premium receipt indicated the corporation was on risk from the receipt date – The Court relied on precedents that establish the principles of insurance contracts and the obligations of good faith expected from insurers – The Supreme Court concluded that LIC had indeed entered into a contract with the policyholder before his death, and thus, was liable to pay the insurance benefits to the appellants.

May 12, 2024 sclaw