<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!--generator='jetpack-16.0'-->
<!--Jetpack_Sitemap_Buffer_News_XMLWriter-->
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="//sclaw.in/news-sitemap.xsl"?>
<urlset xmlns="http://www.sitemaps.org/schemas/sitemap/0.9" xmlns:news="http://www.google.com/schemas/sitemap-news/0.9" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.sitemaps.org/schemas/sitemap/0.9 http://www.sitemaps.org/schemas/sitemap/0.9/sitemap.xsd">
 <url>
  <loc>https://sclaw.in/2026/07/15/presidency-towns-insolvency-act-1909-section-92-decree-or-order-whether-includes-a-recovery-certificate-issued-by-a-debts-recovery-tribunal-under-the-recovery-of-d/</loc>
  <lastmod>2026-07-15T08:14:01Z</lastmod>
  <news:news>
   <news:publication>
    <news:name>Supreme Court of India  Judgements  </news:name>
    <news:language>en</news:language>
   </news:publication>
   <news:title>Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 — Section 9(2) — &amp;quot;Decree or order&amp;quot; — Whether includes a recovery certificate issued by a Debts Recovery Tribunal under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (pre-2016 amendment) — Held, no — Insolvency Act, being weighed with grave civil consequence of &amp;quot;civil death&amp;quot;, must be strictly construed — Expression &amp;quot;decree or order&amp;quot; must bear the meaning assigned under Ss. 2(2) and 2(14), CPC, requiring adjudication by a &amp;quot;court&amp;quot; in a &amp;quot;suit&amp;quot; — A DRT recovery certificate, not being a decree or order of a court within this meaning, cannot found an insolvency notice under S. 9(2) — Ratio of Paramjeet Singh Patheja v. ICDS Ltd., (2006) 13 SCC 322 (rendered qua arbitral awards) held to rest on a wider principle applicable equally to DRT recovery certificates — Impugned judgment of Division Bench, Bombay High Court, affirming Single Judge&amp;#039;s quashing of insolvency notice, upheld.</news:title>
   <news:publication_date>2026-07-15T08:14:01Z</news:publication_date>
   <news:genres>Blog</news:genres>
  </news:news>
 </url>
 <url>
  <loc>https://sclaw.in/2026/07/15/persons-with-disabilities-equal-opportunities-protection-of-rights-and-full-participation-act-1995-section-47-non-discrimination-in-government-employment-employee-acq/</loc>
  <lastmod>2026-07-15T08:08:52Z</lastmod>
  <news:news>
   <news:publication>
    <news:name>Supreme Court of India  Judgements  </news:name>
    <news:language>en</news:language>
   </news:publication>
   <news:title>Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 — Section 47 — Non-discrimination in government employment — Employee acquiring disability during service — Mandatory obligation on employer to shift employee to alternate post with same pay and service benefits, or, failing that, to accommodate on supernumerary post till superannuation — Respondent, a CRPF Constable (Driver), rendered blind/partially blind in 1996 and medically invalidated from service in 1998 without consideration of alternate posting — Held, S. 47 casts a positive and mandatory obligation on employer to protect disabled employee and not await a request for accommodation — Order of medical invalidation dated 11-3-1998 held ultra vires S. 47 and Arts. 14 and 21 of the Constitution — Single Judge&amp;#039;s direction reinstating respondent, upheld by Division Bench, affirmed in principle, though relief modified in view of respondent&amp;#039;s superannuation — Kunal Singh v. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 524; Bhagwan Dass v. Punjab State Electricity Board, (2008) 1 SCC 579; Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal v. Union of India, (2023) 2 SCC 209, relied on.</news:title>
   <news:publication_date>2026-07-15T08:08:52Z</news:publication_date>
   <news:genres>Blog</news:genres>
  </news:news>
 </url>
</urlset>
