![[Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, S. 80] | [Civil court jurisdiction barred for disputes concerning public trusts unless specific conditions are met.]](https://i0.wp.com/sclaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Code-of-Civil-Procedure.jpg?resize=150%2C150&ssl=1)
Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 – Rule 14(b) – Appointment – Post of Police Constable – Suppression of information – A candidate for recruitment to a disciplined force, the non-disclosure of the information of his involvement in the criminal case and subsequent acquittal therefrom cast a serious doubt upon his character and the antecedents which is sufficient enough to disentitle him from employment – Candidate not disclosed the complete information with regard to his involvement in a criminal case, wherein he might have been acquitted earlier even before verification, he cannot escape the guilt of suppressing the material information – Candidate not be entitled to appointment.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE TAMILNADU, MYLAPORE — Appellant Vs. J. RAGHUNEES — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.…
The Central Excise Tariff Heading 2403- there cannot be a demand against the classification under which the product is registered without undoing the classification of the product in the registration certificate
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH COMMERCIAL OF CENTRAL EXCISE AHMEDABAD — Appellant Vs. M/S URMIN PRODUCTS P. LTD. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and…
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 311 of course, does not intend to fill the lacunae in the prosecution’s case and cause any serious prejudice to the rights of an accused – If a witness turns hostile for extenuating reasons and is reluctant to depose the unvarnished truth, it will cause irreversible damage to the administration of justice and the faith of the society at large in the efficacy and credibility of the criminal justice system will stand eroded and shattered – Power to recall witnesses under Section 311 CrPC ought to be exercised sparingly and mere hostility by a witness, per se, would not be a sufficient ground to infer misuse of concession of bail.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MUNILAKSHMI — Appellant Vs. NARENDRA BABU AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 3297…
Cancellation of Bail – If it is found that an undertrial has attempted to misuse the concession of bail either by influencing the witnesses or tampering with the evidence or trying to flee from justice, such person can be committed to custody by withdrawing the concession of bail.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MUNILAKSHMI — Appellant Vs. NARENDRA BABU AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 3297…
State Amendments Made To VAT Acts After GST Came Into Effect Are Invalid
“The amendments in question, made to the Telangana VAT Act, and the Gujarat VAT Act, after 01.07.2017 were correctly held void, for want of legislative competence, by the two High…
Judgment Debtor Can’t Be Allowed To Take Undue Advantage By Invoking Plea Of Lack Of Jurisdiction At Execution Stage
Executing Court Cannot Go Beyond the Decree The Court observed that the legal principle of an Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree stands fortified, subject to the rigor of…
Sexual Harassment at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 – Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Rules, 2013 – Section 5 – Notification of District Officer – Direction to all the States/UTs to notify and appoint the District Officers – Treating Section 5 as directory, would leave a gaping hole in the otherwise clearly delineated workflow and redressal mechanism, and the efficacy of this legislation, as a result, falls flat – Directions by SCOI to ensure the effective implementation of the Sexual Harassment at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, and render it workable:
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH INITIATIVES FOR INCLUSION FOUNDATION AND ANOTHER — Appellant UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta,…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 457, 380 and 506 – Lurking house trespass or house breaking at night, theft and criminal intimidation – FIR quashed by High Court – Appeal against – Assets and belongings inside the shop in question were in joint possession of the appellant as also the respondent and there was an injunction granted by the Competent Court that the assets and belongings of the shop in question would be preserved, removal of the same without consent or knowledge of the appellant would amount to theft – There was breaking open of the locks of the premises wherein the property was stored for the purposes of theft – All these offences are cognizable in nature and basic ingredients being there in the FIR, the High Court clearly erred in quashing the FIR – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RUCHIR RASTOGI — Appellant Vs. PANKAJ RASTOGI AND OTHERS ETC. @ RESPONDENT ( Before : Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 4 and 6 – Acquisition of land – Compensation – Court for awarding annual increase to determine the just compensation varies from case to case and the period to be applied is a major factor to be considered – In the present case would be best determined if apply 8% annual increase with cumulative effect – This is for the reason that the gap is huge i.e. 11 years. For shorter period of 3-5 years, it could have been 10% or 12% – But in no case 15% would be justified for a period of 11 years as awarded by the High Court in the impugned order – In the present case, given the 11 years gap, 8% would be considered just and proper.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION — Appellant Vs. THAKUR DWARA KALAN UL-MARUF BARAGLAN WALA (DEAD) AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and…
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 – Section 31A and 31D – Termination of tenancy – Landlord sought to recover possession for the purpose of personal cultivation – It was unnecessary for the revisional authority to remand the case for framing an issue on the applicability of Section 31A-31D – Applicability of those provisions was dependent on the question of whether the landlord’s holding exceeded one unit of economic holding – That question was merely one of law, the fact of the landlord’s holding having already come on record before the original authority – Revisional authority could have taken upon itself the task of deciding the question and disposing off the dispute before itself
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KESHAV BHAURAO YEOLE (D) BY LRS. — Appellant Vs. MURALIDHAR (D) AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar,…