Supreme Court of India Judgements

46660 Judgements hosted as on 19/11/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Service

Service Matters
Service

Navy (Pension) Regulations, 1964 – Regulations 78, 105B, 107 and 107(1) – Quantification of disability pension – Individual – A person who has completed the period of engagement is entitled to disability element apart from service pension. The expression ‘service pension’ admissible is not restricted to the qualifying service provided under Regulation 78. It is not for the Courts to remedy the defect in the Statute.

Nov 10, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. V.R. NANUKUTTAN NAIR — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta, JJ. )…

Service Matters
Service

Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 – Rule 88 – Grant of pension – The services rendered by the respondents as GDS or other Extra­Departmental Agents cannot be factored in for computing their qualifying services in regular posts under the postal department on the question of grant of pension.

Nov 10, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. GANDIBA BEHERA — Respondent ( Before : Ranjan Gogoi, CJI, Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose, JJ.…

Service Matters
Service

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 311(2)(b) – Dismissal of the judicial officers dispensing with the departmental inquiry. HELD The appeals are dismissed and the stay order is vacated, albeit we clarify that the respondents, in terms of the judgment passed by the Division Bench, would be required to proceed in accordance with law.

Nov 10, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HARI NIWAS GUPTA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Indu Malhotra and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ. ) Civil…

Service Matters
Service

Air Force Rules, 1969 – Rules 15(2), 15(2)(g)(ii) and Rule 15(2)(k) – Habitual offender -The show cause notice issued to the Respondent is in accordance with the Habitual Offenders Policy. A second warning letter is not required when it is decided to pass a final order without giving another chance. There is no violation of the procedure prescribed by the Policy –

Nov 10, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. 794898 T. EX. CORPORAL ABHISHEK PANDEY — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant…

Service Matters
Service

HCs Have Power To Dispense With Disciplinary Proceedings For Dismissing Judicial Officers By Recording Reasons — The Supreme Court has observed that the High Courts have power to dispense with the disciplinary proceedings by invoking clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, by recording reasons,

Nov 8, 2019 sclaw

  HCs Have Power To Dispense With Disciplinary Proceedings For Dismissing Judicial Officers By Recording Reasons: SC The Supreme Court has observed that the High Courts have power to dispense…

Service Matters
Service

The release under probation does not entitle an employee to claim a right to continue in service. In fact the employer is under an obligation to discontinue the services of an employee convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude. “Recall of judgment would amount to alteration or review of judgment which is not permissible under Section 362 CrPC. It cannot be validated by the High Court invoking its inherent powers.”

Nov 4, 2019 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Appellant Vs. MAN SINGH — Respondent ( Before : Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Service Matters
Service

Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Ex-servicemen) Rules, 1988 – Rule 6B A candidate who is not eligible on the last date of submission of application cannot be treated to be eligible in the category of Ex-servicemen when the writ petitioners were in active service on the last date of submission of application forms

Oct 27, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, AJMER AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SHIKUN RAM FIRUDA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and…

Service Matters
Service

Service Law – Promotion – Tribunal was right in holding that no prejudice is caused to the Appellant by applying Navy Order. Violation of every provision does not furnish a ground for the Court to interfere unless the affected person demonstrates prejudice caused to him by such violation – Appeals dismissed.

Oct 19, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SURGEON REAR ADMIRAL MANISHA JAIPRAKASH — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta,…

Service Matters
Service

Service Law – it cannot be said that the appointment of the employees in the present set of appeals were irregular appointments. Such appointments are illegal appointment in terms of the ratio of Supreme Court judgment in Uma Devi. As such appointments were made without any sanctioned post, without any advertisement giving opportunity to all eligible candidates to apply and seek public employment and without any method of recruitment.

Oct 19, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. DEVENDRA SHARMA — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta, JJ. )…

You missed

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 376 and 313 — Rape — False promise of marriage — Physical relationship with the complainant under the false promise of marriage, leading to her pregnancy and subsequent abortions — Whether the FIR should be quashed based on the allegations and the delay in filing the complaint — The petitioner argued that the relationship was consensual and the delay in filing the FIR undermines the credibility of the allegations — The respondent claimed that the petitioner deceived her with a false promise of marriage, leading to non-consensual physical relations — The Supreme Court quashed the FIR, noting the long-term consensual relationship and the lack of prima facie evidence for rape under Section 376 IPC —The Court emphasized the delay in filing the FIR and the nature of the relationship, which appeared consensual —The Court referred to previous judgments, highlighting the importance of prima facie evidence and the misuse of legal provisions —The FIR and all proceedings based on it were quashed, preventing abuse of the legal process.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B —Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) — Financial misconduct and conspiracy — Whether the High Court was correct in discharging the respondent from the charges of conspiracy and financial misconduct — The CBI argued that the High Court conducted a mini-trial at the charge-framing stage and that there was sufficient suspicion to frame charges against the respondent — The respondent’s counsel argued that the material in the charge sheet did not make out a case against the respondent and that the High Court rightly discharged him —The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to discharge the respondent, stating that mere suspicion was not enough to frame charges – The Court found that the respondent’s role was limited to signing the memorandum prepared by senior officers and participating in the Management Committee meeting, which approved the proposal — The Court emphasized that the proposal had passed through various committees and that the respondent’s actions did not amount to criminal misconduct — The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was discharged from the charges — The trial against other accused persons will continue.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Municipal Laws

Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1951 — Sections 146, 423 and 488(1) — The Patna Municipal Corporation imposed a royalty on advertisements, which was later increased — The respondents challenged this imposition, arguing it was a tax without legislative backing — Whether the royalty imposed by the Corporation was a tax and if it was legally enforceable without legislative sanction — The Corporation argued that the royalty was agreed upon by the parties and was not a tax — They contended that the enhancement of the rate was within their rights — The respondents argued that the imposition was a tax, which required legislative sanction, and the Corporation had no authority to levy it — The Division Bench quashed the enhancement, ruling that the Corporation had no power to impose the tax without legislative backing — The Court found that the royalty was not a tax but a fee agreed upon by the parties — It held that the Corporation’s actions were within the scope of the agreement — The Court distinguished between royalty and tax, emphasizing that royalty is based on an agreement, not statutory provision — The Court upheld the imposition of royalty as per the agreement but noted that the enhancement in rates was not challenged effectively — The judgment of the Division Bench was set aside.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Constitution

Citizenship Act, 1955 — Section 6A — Special provisions as to citizenship of persons covered by the Assam Accord — The case involves the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955, which grants citizenship to certain migrants from Bangladesh to Assam —The main issues include whether Parliament had the legislative competence to enact Section 6A, and if Section 6A violates Articles 6, 7, 14, 29, and 355 of the Constitution — Petitioners argue that Section 6A is unconstitutional as it conflicts with Articles 6 and 7, adopts unreasonable cut-off dates, and violates Articles 14, 29, and 355 — Respondents contend that Section 6A is within Parliament’s legislative competence under Article 11 and does not violate the Constitution — The judgment addresses the legislative competence of Parliament, the reasonableness of cut-off dates, and the impact on Assamese cultural identity — The court examines the historical context of citizenship provisions, the legislative intent behind Section 6A, and the scope of judicial review under Article 14 — The court analyzes the constitutional provisions on citizenship, the legislative objective of Section 6A, and the balance between legislative intent and constitutional mandates —The court concludes that Section 6A of the Citizenship Act is constitutional and does not violate the cited Articles of the Constitution.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw