Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 8 Rule 10 – Failure to file written statement – Provision of Rule 10 of Order VIII, CPC is by no means mandatory in the sense that a court has no alternative but to pass a judgment in favour of the plaintiff – Since facts are required to be pleaded in a plaint and not the evidence, which can be adduced in course of examination of witnesses, mere failure or neglect of a defendant to file a written statement controverting the pleaded facts in the plaint, in all cases, may not entitle him to a judgment in his favour unless by adducing evidence he proves his case/claim.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ASMA LATEEF AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SHABBIR AHMAD AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai, Dipankar Datta and Aravind Kumar, JJ.…
Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act, 1977 – Section 18 – Development Plan – – NGT could not have directed the delegatee who has been delegated powers under the TCP Act to enact the regulations, to do so in a particular manner – Development plan, which has been finalized after taking recourse to the statutory provisions and undergoing the rigors thereto, cannot be stalled in entirety thereby putting the entire developmental activities to a standstill.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. YOGENDERA MOHAN SENGUPTA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Aravind…
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – Sections 14, 15 and 18(1) – Environment Pollution – Pollution created by Inland Container Depot (ICD) at Tughlakabad – NGT has inter alia observed that there is an option to restrict the entry of diesel vehicles in the said ICDs at Tughlakabad by diverting these vehicles to the ICDs at Dadri, Rewari, Ballabhgarh, Khatuawas or any other ICD around Delhi so as to control the pollution in Delhi NCR, as if only the people living in Delhi NCR alone are entitled to pollution free atmosphere and not those living in other parts of the country. Such an observation by the NGT is in complete ignorance of the fact that citizens living in other parts of the country other than Delhi NCR also have a fundamental right to a pollution free environment as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CONTAINER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. — Appellant Vs. AJAY KHERA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.…
Rs 25 LAKHS IMPOSED ON UNSCRUPLOUS LITIGANT – Unnecessary turning of a civil matter into a criminal case not only overburdens the criminal justice system but also violates the principles of fairness and right conduct in legal matters – Unscrupulous litigants should not be allowed to go scot-free – They should be put to strict terms and conditions including costs. It is time to check with firmness such litigation initiated and laced with concealment, falsehood, and forum hunting – Even State actions or conduct of government servants being party to such malicious litigation should be seriously reprimanded – This Court impose costs of Rs. 25 lakhs on respondent-complainant.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DINESH GUPTA — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. )…
Internal notings – Until and unless the decision taken on file is converted into a final order to be communicated and duly served on the concerned party, no right accrues to the said party – Mere notings and in-principle approvals do not confer a vested right.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — Appellant Vs. HELLO HOME EDUCATION SOCIETY — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Service Law – Recovery of personal/promotional pay scale benefits – Benefit of a personal/promotional pay scale was granted to Appellants/Ayurvedic Medical Officers by the State of Uttarakhand – Benefit was withdrawn under a subsequent decision of the State of Uttarakhand – By the order dated 8th November 2006, the personal time-bound pay scale was granted to the appellants, subject to the condition that if the Government takes any decision to the contrary, the amount will be recovered from the salary of the concerned medical officers – Recovery order upheld – Appeal dismissed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DR. BALBIR SINGH BHANDARI — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal,…
Even if the case of later payments by the respondents to the appellants is accepted, the same being at great intervals and there being no willingness shown by them to pay the remaining amount or getting the Sale Deed ascribed on necessary stamp paper and giving notice to the appellants to execute the Sale Deed, it cannot be said that in the present case, judged on the anvil of the conduct of parties, especially the appellants, time would not remain the essence of the contract – Suit for specific performance dismissed
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ALAGAMMAL AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. GANESAN AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 366(29A)(d) – Finance Act, 1994 – Section 65(105)(zzzzj) – Transfer of right to use the goods -When the substantial control remains with the contractor and is not handed over to the user, there is no transfer of the right to use the vehicles, cranes, tankers, etc – Whenever there is no such control on the goods vested in the person to whom the supply is made, the transaction will be of rendering service within the meaning of Section 65(105) (zzzzj) of the Finance Act after the said provision came into force.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. K.P. MOZIKA — Appellant Vs. OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh…
High Court, by the impugned judgment and order, could not have issued a mandamus to the instrumentalities of the State to enter into a contract, which was totally harmful to the public interest – Award of a contract, whether it is by a private party or by a public body or the State, is essentially a commercial transaction – In arriving at a commercial decision, considerations which are paramount are commercial considerations
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. MB POWER (MADHYA PRADESH) LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai…
BILKIS BANO – In a case where the trial has been transferred by this Court from a court of competent jurisdiction of a State to a court in another State, it is still the Government of the State within which the offender was sentenced which is the appropriate Government which has the jurisdiction as well as competency to pass an order of remission under Section 432 of the CrPC – Therefore, it is not the Government of the State within whose territory the offence occurred or the convict is imprisoned which can assume the power of remission – Gujarat Government’s order granting remission to 11 convicts is quashed
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BILKIS YAKUB RASOOL — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. ) Writ…