Refund of excess price paid over the notified price in e-auction – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the appellant and directed the respondent to pay the refund amount with interest @ 12% per annum for the relevant periods, within two months, failing which the officers concerned would be personally liable.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. DOMCO SMOKELESS FUELS PVT. LTD — Appellant Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta,…
“No Tax Exemption for Enemy Property: Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of Enemy Property Act”
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LUCKNOW NAGAR NIGAM AND OTHERS — AppellantS Vs. KOHLI BROTHERS COLOUR LAB PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS — RespondentS ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and…
“Non-Disclosure of Past Case Not Fatal: Constable Wins Appeal Against Selection Cancellation”- The court also observed that each case of suppression or false information has to be decided on its own facts and circumstances, and that the employer has to act reasonably and objectively.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAVINDRA KUMAR — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Implement Community Kitchens to combat hunger, malnutrition and starvation in the country – Court has also reiterated that the scope of judicial review in examining policy matters is very limited, and the Courts cannot direct the States to implement a particular policy or scheme on the ground that a better, fairer or wiser alternative is available – The Court has disposed of the writ petition with these observations.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANUN DHAWAN AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.…
“Home Science Considered Single Subject, Recruitment Validates 18 Lecturer Positions”
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SMT. VIDYA K. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Aravind Kumar,…
The prosecution could not prove his guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, as there were glaring discrepancies in the eyewitnesses’ version, absence of the testimony of the material witnesses and the ballistic report, and non-recovery of the weapon of crime – The Court also observed that the trial court had erred in convicting and acquitting the co-accused on the same set of evidence.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAM SINGH — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF U.P. — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA) – Sections 3(zz), 59 and 89 – Penal Code, 1860(IPC) – FSSA is a comprehensive and exhaustive legislation on all aspects of food and food safety, and that Section 89 of the FSSA gives an overriding effect to its provisions over any other law, including the IPC, in so far as the law applies to the aspects of food covered by the FSSA
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAM NATH — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, JJ.…
(a) whether the appellant was entitled to withdraw her prospective resignation before the effective date; (b) whether the acceptance of her resignation by the trust was final, binding and irrevocable; and (c) what relief could be granted to the appellant – The court allowed the appeal and set aside the orders of the College Tribunal and the High Court
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DR. MRS. SUMAN V. JAIN — Appellant Vs. MARWADI SAMMELAN THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and K.V.…
Court held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act was applicable in appeals against acquittal under Section 378 of CrPC, unless expressly excluded by the special law
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MOHD ABAAD ALI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE PROSECUTION INTELLIGENCE — Respondent ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale,…
Institute had deviated from the original selection procedure and introduced a new criterion of “relevant subject” for PG Degree, which was not prescribed in the notification – The Court also held that the appellant was entitled to 6 marks for his additional qualification, which would have made him the highest in the list
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANOJ KUMAR — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Civil…