Supreme Court of India Judgements

46448 Judgements hosted as on 05/05/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Service

Service Matters
Service

Subsistence Allowance–Non payment of–It must be shown that because of non-payment of subsistence allowance during the period of suspension the employee was not in a position to participate in the proceedings or that any other prejudice in effectively defending the proceedings was caused to him.

Nov 2, 2017 sclaw

2008(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 161 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi  Appeal (civil) 587 of 2005…

Service Matters
Service

Disciplinary Proceedings–Enquiry officer appointed to inquire into the charge leveled against a delinquent employee/officer is neither a court nor the provisions of the Evidence Act are applicable. Disciplinary Proceedings -Natural Justice–Summoning of witnesses–Enquiry officer has discretionary power to summon or not to summon the witnesses.

Oct 29, 2017 sclaw

  2008(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 93 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi Civil Appeal No. 5608…

Service Matters
Service

Appointment–Enquiry by State Vigilance Bureau–State’s disinclination to make an appointment till then cannot said to be faulted – Such a decision cannot said to be arbitrary or unreasonable. Cadre Strength–What would be the need of the State and how an administration shall be run is within the exclusive domain of the State–The power of judicial review in such matter is very limited. Appointment–Decision taken by the previous Government in public interest cannot be reviewed at the hands of successor Government. Cadre Strength–Increase in–Determination of cadre strength on the basis of the representation made by the Association or exercise of suo motu power by the Chief Minister without any material having been brought before him for the purpose of increase in the cadre strength must be deprecated in strongest terms .

Oct 22, 2017 sclaw

  2008(1) Law Herald (SC) 38 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice  S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi  Civil Appeal No. 5803…

Service Matters
Service

Pension–High Court dismissed the petition as respondent produced fabricated documents–Allowed another petition extending benefit of governing rules–Not justified. Writ Jurisdiction–Miscellaneous Application–Where a proceedings stands terminated by final disposal of writ petition–It is not open to the court to re-open the proceedings by means of a miscellaneous application in respect of a matter which provided a fresh cause of action.

Oct 14, 2017 sclaw

   2007(5) LAW HERALD (SC) 4066 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice H. K. Sema The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta Civil Appeal No.…

You missed

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 120-B read with Section 420 – Cheating – The case involves fraudulent transactions by accused in connivance with Indian Bank officials resulting in interest-free advances to the petitioners – The main issue is whether the petitioners were involved in cheating the bank and if they availed any undue benefit from the fraudulent transactions – The petitioners argued that they were not involved in the cheating, had not availed any undue benefit, and that the transactions were normal business dealings – The court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions, upholding the Trial Court’s conviction of the petitioners for cheating the bank through unauthorized transactions.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
Limitation

Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Condonation of Delay – Delay of 1663 days – The State of U.P. filed a SLP against an order dated 13.11.2009 by the Allahabad High Court, with a delay of 1,633 days – The main issue was the condonation of the significant delay in filing the SLP – The State argued that the delay was due to the time taken for obtaining legal opinion and permissions, and later, the realization that the appeal was not filed initially – The application for condonation of delay was dismissed, and consequently, the SLP was also dismissed – The court found the explanation for the delay unsatisfactory, especially since the State was aware of the High Court’s order when it was passed – The court did not find sufficient cause to condone the delay, leading to the dismissal of the SLP.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
Property Matters

Partition Suit – The dispute involves partition of properties left by Late ‘R’ with the main contention over roof rights of a property in Kota and another in Jaipur – The primary issue is the valuation of roof rights for further construction and the equal distribution of property among co-sharers – The appellants argue that the valuation report failed to assess the value of roof rights, which would affect the overall property valuation and entitlement of co-sharers – The respondents maintain that the property valuation and shares were appropriately determined by the approved Valuer and upheld by both the Trial Court and High Court – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in revaluating the property or altering the determined shares of the parties – The Court emphasized the importance of family ties over property disputes and suggested alternative dispute resolution methods for amicable settlements – The Court referenced the case of Afcons Infrastructure Limited vs. Cherian Varkey Construction Company Private Limited, advocating for ADR in family-related property disputes – The Supreme Court concluded that revisiting the valuation and partition would only prolong litigation and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
Constitution Municipal Laws

West Bengal Municipal(Building) Rules, 2007 – Rule 50 – Open spaces for building in areas other than municipalities in hill areas – The appellants challenge the High Court of Calcutta’s order regarding a contempt petition related to their residential property construction and its compliance with Rule 50 of Rules, 2007 – The appellants argue that the writ petition was a private matter and should not have been entertained by the High Court – They also claim that municipal authorities are unfairly pressuring them due to the contempt proceedings – The respondent claims that the appellants violated the sanctioned building plan, justifying the High Court’s direction for an enquiry – The Supreme Court allowed the appellants to challenge the enquiry report and show cause notice, ensuring their objections would be considered objectively without prejudice from the contempt or writ proceedings – The court expressed reservations about the High Court’s exercise of writ jurisdiction in a private dispute and suggested the civil court as the appropriate forum for grievances – The appeal was disposed of with the appellants given the liberty to challenge the enquiry report and show cause notice, without cost order.

May 5, 2024 sclaw