Category: Uncategorized

Service Matters

Service Law – Termination – The Supreme Court found that the termination was unjustified and in violation of natural justice principles, as no disciplinary enquiry was conducted – The Court quashed the High Court’s judgments and the termination order, reinstated the appellant, and allowed the Institute to conduct disciplinary proceedings if desired.

2024 INSC 309 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANDEEP KUMAR — Appellant Vs. GB PANT INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY GHURDAURI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R.…

Amendment of Plaint – Amendment of the plaint in a suit for partition of ancestral property -The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court, holding that the amendment was not permissible as it would change the nature and character of the suit, cause prejudice to the appellant, and was barred by limitation and res judicata -The Court relied on the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 and Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the precedents of this Court (M. Revanna v. Anjanamma (Dead) by legal representatives and others, (2019) 4 SCC 332 ) on the scope and limitations of amendment of pleadings and challenge to compromise decrees.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BASAVARAJ — Appellant Vs. INDIRA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 2886 of…

Civil Law – It is settled law that a vendor cannot transfer a title to the vendee better than he himself possesses, the principle arising from the maxim nemo dat quod non habet, i.e., “no one can confer a better title than what he himself has”. In the present case, the plaintiff’s vendor having been denied the right of title in the land by the Commissioner’s order, could not have conveyed the same to her vendee.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH P. KISHORE KUMAR — Appellant Vs. VITTAL K. PATKAR — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi and Dipankar Datta, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Service Matters

Acquittal in POCSO cases cannot be treated as a clean acquittal when prosecutrix and witnesses cited by the prosecution turned hostile, the trial Court passed an order, acquitting the respondent of the charges framed under Section 354(D) of the IPC and Section 11 (D)/12 of the POCSO Act – Appointment to post of police constable unsuitable.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. BHUPENDRA YADAV — Respondent ( Before : Hima Kohli and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. )…

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 18 – Appeal against conviction – An appeal against conviction could not have been treated as infructuous merely for the reason that the convicted appellant had served out the sentence awarded by the Trial Court in any case, the appeal could not have been dismissed as infructuous – Appeal remanded

2022) 1 ApexCourtJudgments(SC) 394 : (2022) 1 CriCC 387 : (2022) 1 RCR(Criminal) 119 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GURJANT SINGH — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB —…

Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is a complete code for resolving all disputes, including against strangers to the decree. – The Executing Court could not have dismissed the execution petition by treating the decree to be inexecutable merely on the basis that the decree-holder has lost possession to a third party/encroacher.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SMT. VED KUMARI (DEAD THROUGH HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE) DR. VIJAY AGARWAL — Appellant Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER — Respondent (…

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 – Section 3 – An establishment contributing to the economy of the country and providing livelihood ought not to be closed down only on the ground of the technical irregularity of not obtaining prior Environmental Clearance irrespective of whether or not the unit actually causes pollution.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S PAHWA PLASTICS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. DASTAK NGO AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and J.K. Maheshwari,…

(CrPC) – Section 188 – Sanction – In terms of Section 188, even if an offence is committed outside India, (a) by a citizen whether on the high seas or anywhere else or (b) by a non-citizen on a ship or aircraft registered in India, the Section gets attracted when the entirety of the offence is committed outside India; and the grant of sanction would enable such offence to be enquired into or tried in India.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SARTAJ KHAN — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ.…

You missed

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 236 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Sections 190, 193 and 200 – The appeal challenges a High Court judgment regarding a complaint filed by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India against the Ex-Directors of M/s. SBM Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. for offences under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – The primary issue is whether the Special Court established under Chapter XXVIII of the Companies Act, 2013 has jurisdiction to try offences under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India argued that the High Court erred in quashing the proceedings and that offences under the Code should be tried by the Special Court – The respondents contended that the High Court’s judgment was correct and that the Special Court did not have jurisdiction to try the complaint – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Special Court presided by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge has jurisdiction to try the complaint under the Code – The Court reasoned that the reference to the Special Court in Section 236(1) of the Code is a ‘legislation by incorporation’ and not a ‘legislation by reference’, meaning subsequent amendments to the Companies Act do not affect the Code – The Court applied principles from previous judgments to determine that the case is one of ‘legislation by incorporation’ – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and remitted the matter to the High Court for consideration on merits. The judicial opinion emphasizes the importance of legislative intent and the distinction between ‘legislation by incorporation’ and ‘legislation by reference’ in determining jurisdiction.