Supreme Court of India Judgements

46640 Judgements hosted as on 10/10/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Service

Service Matters
Service

the High Court set aside the order of termination – Court find that the respondent was given a copy of the order of cancellation of the certificate passed by the Tahsildar, Nowrangpur and he also signed in lieu of the receipt of the copy of the said order. In view of the fact that the petitioner was given a copy of the order of cancellation of certificate the High Court was not justified in holding that the respondent was not confronted with the order of cancellation of certificate. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent then urged that the respondent was denied an opportunity of personal hearing before the disciplinary authority – Appeal allowed.

May 13, 2017 sclaw

  (2000) 1 LLJ 275 : (1999) 9 SCC 268 : (1999) SCC(L&S) 1228 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. LUTHER KONDHPAN —…

Service Matters
Service

High Court was to remit the matter to the Government for Constitution of the DPC to consider his fitment for promotion in later period, in that event, the DPC would go into the merits afresh and find out whether the respondent would be fit for promotion. If he would be found fit and recommendation is made in that behalf, the Government would appoint him on regular basis and he would get seniority only from the date of his promotion

May 13, 2017 sclaw

  (1997) 10 JT 628 : (1997) 3 SCALE 337 : (1997) 4 SCC 424 : (1997) SCC(L&S) 975 : (1997) 2 SCR 1133 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA STATE OF…

Service Matters
Service

The Respondent would not have any right to get any further advantage in the nature of higher salary or a higher pay scale, especially when nothing from his salary was being deducted on account of his getting pension or perquisites from the earlier employer – The Tribunal was absolutely right in coming to the conclusion that the pay fixation under the order was correct because a mistake was committed in the earlier pay fixation – Appeal stands disposed of.

May 13, 2017 sclaw

  (2013) 11 AD 499 : (2014) 140 FLR 7 : (2013) 14 JT 203 : (2014) LabIC 1564 : (2014) 1 LLN 17 : (2013) 13 SCALE 393 :…

You missed

Cr P C I P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Quashing of Criminal Proceedings under Section 482 in Cases with Predominantly Civil Character — The court reiterated the principle that criminal cases with overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions, matrimonial relationships, or family disputes, should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves — This principle is applied in the present case, where the dispute involved a loan transaction between the accused persons and the bank, and the parties had settled the matter through the One Time Settlement (OTS).

Oct 9, 2024 sclaw
Service

The main issue is whether the eligibility criteria requiring AICTE approval for diplomas is valid, given the Supreme Court’s previous ruling that universities do not need AICTE approval for technical courses —The petitioners argued that the eligibility criteria were inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s ruling and that they were unfairly excluded from the recruitment process —The respondents contended that the recruitment process was conducted according to the existing rules and that the petitioners were bound by the doctrine of acquiescence —The Supreme Court directed the Bihar Technical Service Commission to prepare a fresh select list of meritorious candidates, considering the previous High Court order and the AICTE’s stance —The Court found that changing the eligibility criteria after the selection process was completed was impermissible and that the petitioners had a legitimate right to be considered — The appeals were disposed of with directions to prepare a revised select list within three months, ensuring that eligible candidates are considered fairly.

Oct 9, 2024 sclaw
Direct Taxation Income Tax

Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 139(5) — Revised Income Tax Return — The appellant filed multiple revised returns for the assessment year 1989-90, which were not considered due to being barred by limitation —Whether the assessing officer can consider claims made in a revised return filed after the time limit prescribed by Section 139(5) of the Act — The appellant argued that the assessing officer should consider the claim for deduction of deferred revenue expenditure, even if the revised return was filed late —The respondent contended that the assessing officer has no jurisdiction to consider claims made in a time-barred revised return —The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision that the assessing officer cannot consider claims in a time-barred revised return —The Court emphasized that the assessing officer’s jurisdiction is limited by the time constraints set in Section 139(5) —The Court referred to previous judgments, including Wipro Finance Ltd. and Goetze (India) Ltd., to support its decision —The appeal was dismissed, affirming that claims in a time-barred revised return cannot be considered by the assessing officer.

Oct 9, 2024 sclaw
Tenders & Contracts

Coal Mining Bid — Rejection of — Eligibility criteria — Appellants challenged the rejection of its technical bid by Respondent-BCCL for a coal mining project, while the bid of Respondent No. 8 was accepted despite non-compliance with mandatory requirements —Whether BCCL was justified in rejecting the appellant’s bid and accepting the bid of Respondent No. 8, which did not meet the eligibility criteria — Appellant argues that the rejection was arbitrary and discriminatory — The appellant complied with all requirements, while Respondent No. 8 was allowed to submit missing documents later — BCCL argues that the appellant’s bid was non-compliant due to issues with the Power of Attorney — The Tender Committee could seek shortfall documents but not replace them —The Supreme Court found BCCL’s actions arbitrary and illegal, setting aside the rejection of the appellant’s bid and the acceptance of Respondent No. 8’s bid — The appellant’s Power of Attorney was valid and notarized before submission — BCCL’s acceptance of Respondent No. 8’s bid despite non-compliance was unjustified —Government bodies must act fairly and transparently in awarding contracts — The decision-making process must be free from arbitrariness and bias —The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside BCCL’s decision and any subsequent agreements, and directed BCCL to initiate a fresh tender process.

Oct 9, 2024 sclaw