<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!--generator='jetpack-15.7'-->
<!--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/2026/04/12/criminal-procedure-code-1973-crpc-sections-468-469-470-472-473-and-341-limitation-for-taking-cognizance-of-offence-relevant-date-for-computation-of-period-of-limit/</loc>
  <lastmod>2026-04-12T06:47:40Z</lastmod>
  <news:news>
   <news:publication>
    <news:name>Supreme Court of India  Judgements  </news:name>
    <news:language>en</news:language>
   </news:publication>
   <news:title>Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 468, 469, 470, 472, 473 and 341 — Limitation for taking cognizance of offence — Relevant date for computation of period of limitation is date of filing of complaint or date of initiation of criminal proceedings, not date on which Magistrate takes cognizance — Constitution Bench decision in Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases [(2014) 2 SCC 62] holds good law.</news:title>
   <news:publication_date>2026-04-12T06:47:40Z</news:publication_date>
   <news:genres>Blog</news:genres>
  </news:news>
 </url>
 <url>
  <loc>https://sclaw.in/2026/04/12/uttar-pradesh-civil-services-extraordinary-pension-rules-1981-rule-4-sanction-of-governor-for-award-extraordinary-pension-award-requires-sanction-of-the-governor-who/</loc>
  <lastmod>2026-04-12T06:43:50Z</lastmod>
  <news:news>
   <news:publication>
    <news:name>Supreme Court of India  Judgements  </news:name>
    <news:language>en</news:language>
   </news:publication>
   <news:title>Uttar Pradesh Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1981 — Rule 4 — Sanction of Governor for award — Extraordinary pension award requires sanction of the Governor, who exercises administrative discretion based on the rules — The Supreme Court held that the authority on whom the power to take a decision is conferred should be the one to take it, especially when the rules enumerate the considerations — The Court would be slow to substitute its own decision unless the authority has refused to decide or the decision is arbitrary — In such cases, a direction to the authority to decide afresh would be more appropriate than the Court substituting its own decision.</news:title>
   <news:publication_date>2026-04-12T06:43:50Z</news:publication_date>
   <news:genres>Blog</news:genres>
  </news:news>
 </url>
 <url>
  <loc>https://sclaw.in/2026/04/12/rajasthan-co-operative-societies-act-2001-section-32-section-8-read-with-schedule-b-bye-laws-framed-by-district-milk-producers-co-operative-unions-validity/</loc>
  <lastmod>2026-04-12T06:40:17Z</lastmod>
  <news:news>
   <news:publication>
    <news:name>Supreme Court of India  Judgements  </news:name>
    <news:language>en</news:language>
   </news:publication>
   <news:title>Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 — Section 32, Section 8 read with Schedule B — Bye-laws framed by District Milk Producers&amp;#039; Co-operative Unions — Validity — Election to Management Committee — Eligibility criteria — Held, bye-laws are valid as they operate within the statutory scheme and are traceable to the enabling power under Section 8 read with Schedule B — Provisions of bye-laws regulate eligibility and representation in a manner consistent with the object and scheme of the Act — They neither curtail any fundamental or statutory right nor introduce disqualifications dehors the statute — High Court erred in striking down the bye-laws.</news:title>
   <news:publication_date>2026-04-12T06:40:17Z</news:publication_date>
   <news:genres>Blog</news:genres>
  </news:news>
 </url>
 <url>
  <loc>https://sclaw.in/2026/04/12/karnataka-rent-act-1999-section-46-revisional-jurisdiction-of-high-court-scope-high-court-cannot-re-appreciate-evidence-or-substitute-its-own-findings-for-thos/</loc>
  <lastmod>2026-04-12T06:36:26Z</lastmod>
  <news:news>
   <news:publication>
    <news:name>Supreme Court of India  Judgements  </news:name>
    <news:language>en</news:language>
   </news:publication>
   <news:title>Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 — Section 46 — Revisional jurisdiction of High Court — Scope — High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own findings for those of the trial court — Revisional power is supervisory and limited to examining legality, correctness, or propriety of an order, not to act as a court of first appeal — Interference is warranted only for perversity, lack of evidence, or manifest illegality</news:title>
   <news:publication_date>2026-04-12T06:36:26Z</news:publication_date>
   <news:genres>Blog</news:genres>
  </news:news>
 </url>
 <url>
  <loc>https://sclaw.in/2026/04/12/uttar-pradesh-public-services-reservation-for-economically-weaker-sections-act-2020-advertisement-dated-15-12-2021-for-9212-posts-of-health-worker-female-economically-weaker-s/</loc>
  <lastmod>2026-04-12T06:30:19Z</lastmod>
  <news:news>
   <news:publication>
    <news:name>Supreme Court of India  Judgements  </news:name>
    <news:language>en</news:language>
   </news:publication>
   <news:title>Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Economically Weaker Sections) Act, 2020 — Advertisement dated 15.12.2021 for 9212 posts of Health Worker (Female) — Economically Weaker Section (EWS) reservation — Clause 8.3 of advertisement requiring candidates to submit EWS certificate issued till the last date of application or advertisement — Prescribed proforma requires certificate to be for the financial year preceding the year of application — Certificates submitted by appellants were not in respect of the correct financial year or were issued before the closure of the relevant financial year — Certificates thus invalid for claiming EWS reservation — High Court rightly dismissed the claim — Appeals dismissed.</news:title>
   <news:publication_date>2026-04-12T06:30:19Z</news:publication_date>
   <news:genres>Blog</news:genres>
  </news:news>
 </url>
 <url>
  <loc>https://sclaw.in/2026/04/12/contitution-of-india-articles-14-16-equality-in-employment-denial-of-promotion-on-discriminatory-grounds-appellant-denied-promotion-despite-long-service-expe/</loc>
  <lastmod>2026-04-12T06:27:09Z</lastmod>
  <news:news>
   <news:publication>
    <news:name>Supreme Court of India  Judgements  </news:name>
    <news:language>en</news:language>
   </news:publication>
   <news:title>Contitution of India — Articles 14 &amp;amp; 16 — Equality in employment — Denial of promotion on discriminatory grounds — Appellant denied promotion despite long service, experience, and possessing a qualification that was accepted for similarly situated employees — High Court Division Bench erroneously set aside Single Judge’s order granting relief, creating contradiction in reasoning by first stating discretion lies with Board of Directors and then upholding Registrar’s refusal — Supreme Court allowed appeal, finding non-acceptance of promotion unsustainable and a violation of equality principles.</news:title>
   <news:publication_date>2026-04-12T06:27:09Z</news:publication_date>
   <news:genres>Blog</news:genres>
  </news:news>
 </url>
 <url>
  <loc>https://sclaw.in/2026/04/12/constitution-of-india-1950-article-14-equality-before-law-dearness-allowance-da-and-dearness-relief-dr-sanctioning-different-rates-of-enhancement-for-da-fo/</loc>
  <lastmod>2026-04-12T06:24:22Z</lastmod>
  <news:news>
   <news:publication>
    <news:name>Supreme Court of India  Judgements  </news:name>
    <news:language>en</news:language>
   </news:publication>
   <news:title>Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 14 — Equality before law — Dearness Allowance (DA) and Dearness Relief (DR) — Sanctioning different rates of enhancement for DA for serving employees and DR for pensioners, when both are intended to mitigate inflation, is discriminatory and violates Article 14.</news:title>
   <news:publication_date>2026-04-12T06:24:22Z</news:publication_date>
   <news:genres>Blog</news:genres>
  </news:news>
 </url>
 <url>
  <loc>https://sclaw.in/2026/04/12/criminal-procedure-code-1973-crpc-section-389-suspension-of-sentence-pending-appeal-suspension-of-sentence-in-serious-offences-should-not-be-granted-routinely/</loc>
  <lastmod>2026-04-12T06:21:47Z</lastmod>
  <news:news>
   <news:publication>
    <news:name>Supreme Court of India  Judgements  </news:name>
    <news:language>en</news:language>
   </news:publication>
   <news:title>Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 389 — Suspension of sentence pending appeal — Suspension of sentence in serious offences should not be granted routinely — Appellate court must apply its mind to the nature of the offence, manner of commission, and gravity of trial court&amp;#039;s findings — Reasons must be recorded in writing, reflecting due consideration of relevant factors — Order granting suspension of sentence should not be passed mechanically — This principle applies even at the stage of considering interlocutory orders.</news:title>
   <news:publication_date>2026-04-12T06:21:47Z</news:publication_date>
   <news:genres>Blog</news:genres>
  </news:news>
 </url>
 <url>
  <loc>https://sclaw.in/2026/04/12/rajasthan-tenancy-act-1955-section-88-khatedari-rights-claim-for-declaration-of-khatedari-rights-and-recovery-of-land-unlawfully-encroached-upon-trial-court-de/</loc>
  <lastmod>2026-04-12T06:18:35Z</lastmod>
  <news:news>
   <news:publication>
    <news:name>Supreme Court of India  Judgements  </news:name>
    <news:language>en</news:language>
   </news:publication>
   <news:title>Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 — Section 88 — Khatedari rights — Claim for declaration of Khatedari rights and recovery of land unlawfully encroached upon — Trial Court decreed suit based on plaintiff&amp;#039;s inherited Khatedari rights from his father — Defendant contested case, later declared ex-parte — Appeal filed after significant delay rejected — Second appeal remanded by Board of Revenue, affirmed by High Court — Supreme Court held that original authority provided no opportunity to adduce evidence after specific date — Trial court proceeded ex-parte without proper service of summons, denying reasonable opportunity to defend — Sale deed not summoned, mutation ignored — Defendant&amp;#039;s unawareness of decree due to non-execution and delayed mutation change — High Court favoured defendant noticing her status as widow and illiterate.</news:title>
   <news:publication_date>2026-04-12T06:18:35Z</news:publication_date>
   <news:genres>Blog</news:genres>
  </news:news>
 </url>
 <url>
  <loc>https://sclaw.in/2026/04/12/hindu-marriage-act-1955-irretrievable-breakdown-of-marriage-parties-living-separately-since-2018-with-marriage-solemnized-in-2002-prolonged-separation-indicates-the-mat/</loc>
  <lastmod>2026-04-12T05:58:52Z</lastmod>
  <news:news>
   <news:publication>
    <news:name>Supreme Court of India  Judgements  </news:name>
    <news:language>en</news:language>
   </news:publication>
   <news:title>Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage — Parties living separately since 2018, with marriage solemnized in 2002 — Prolonged separation indicates the matrimonial bond has broken down beyond repair.</news:title>
   <news:publication_date>2026-04-12T05:58:52Z</news:publication_date>
   <news:genres>Blog</news:genres>
  </news:news>
 </url>
</urlset>
