Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 11(6), 12 and 12(5) – Appointment of Sole Arbitrator – Arbitration clause which authorises the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, whose relationship with Union of India is that of an employee, to nominate an officer of the Ministry of Law and Justice to act as a Sole Arbitrator, clearly falls within the expressly ineligible category provided in Paragraph 1 of Schedule VII, read with Section 12(5) of the Act
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M/S GLOCK ASIA-PACIFIC LTD. — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI., Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and…
Service Law – Reservation – Government Office Memorandum (G.O.Ms.) issued Government of Andhra Pradesh providing for 100% reservation in favour of local scheduled tribal candidates for the post of teacher in all schools situated in Scheduled Areas was held to be unconstitutional.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M. RAMA RAO AND OTHERS. ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and…
Powers of judicial review in contractual or commercial matters – – Courts will not interfere by exercising powers of judicial review even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out – Power of judicial review will not be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide contractual disputes.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH TATA MOTORS LIMITED — Appellant Vs. THE BRIHAN MUMBAI ELECTRIC SUPPLY & TRANSPORT UNDERTAKING (BEST) AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya…
Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 – Section 22A – User development fee collected by the airport operation, maintenance and development entities (i.e., the Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd., the Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd., and the Hyderabad International Airport Pvt. Ltd.) is not subjected to service tax levy, under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CENTRAL GST DELHI – III — Appellant Vs. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta, JJ.…
Mere publication of the Additional List does not create any right to be appointed
Mere publication of a candidate’s name in the Additional List (waiting list) for the purpose of recruitment as a Primary School Teacher, will not create any right to be appointed…
Under Rule 7 of the Odisha Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1992, the departmental inquiry initiated against her (a retired officer) with the sanction of the Government, shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution. She submitted that the allegations indicated in the chargesheet were beyond the period of four years – Contention upheld
chargesheet was in clear breach of the mandate of Rule 7 of Rules 1992. Accordingly, the chargesheet and other consequential departmental proceedings initiated against the officer were quashed. The court…
Judicial Review Can’t Be Exercised To Re-appreciate Evidence In Departmental Enquiry Proceedings
“If the facts of the case are examined in the light of the settled principles of law in scope of judicial review, we find that the Division Bench of the…
(IPC) – Ss 419, 353, 447 and 120B – Discharge – took photographs of case records from mobile phone of civil judge – Court sounds a note of caution for the appellant to be careful in future to avoid recurrence of similar incident and at the same time records a note of appreciation for the second respondent for not precipitating the matter further – After all, ‘to err is human but forgiving is divine’
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NEVILLE DADI MASTER @ NEVILLE MASTER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat…
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 3(1)(x) – Quashing of charge-sheet – Voluntarily causing hurt – There is no material worthy of consideration in this behalf except a bald statement that the complainant sustained multiple injuries “in his hand and other body parts” – If indeed the complainant’s version were to be believed, the IO ought to have asked for a medical report to support the same
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAMESH CHANDRA VAISHYA — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta,…
Parties have suffered an irretrievable breakdown of marriage and hence, in order provide complete justice, the this Court exercised the power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to grant mutual consent divorce to the parties and also closed all cases filed by the parties against each other.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANSI KHATRI — Appellant Vs. GAURAV KHATRI — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. ) Transfer Petition (Civil) No.…







