Latest Post

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 439(2) — Bail — Cancellation of Bail — Appeal against High Court order granting bail — Supreme Court can interfere if bail order is based on extraneous considerations or ignores relevant material, distinct from cancellation for misuse of bail. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Section 14, Section 238 — Telecom laws — Spectrum — Nature of — Can spectrum, even if treated as an asset in corporate debtor’s books, be subjected to proceedings under IBC? — Held, No. Spectrum is a natural resource, the right to use which is granted by the Government under a licence, not ownership. The IBC cannot override the specific statutory regime governing telecommunications law. . Cricket Association Rules — Applicability of Supreme Court Judgments — A district cricket association’s rules and bye-laws are not necessarily required to be identical to those of the national cricket governing body (BCCI) based on previous Supreme Court judgments, as the specific rulings in those cases did not mandate such precise conformity for district associations. Service Law — Regularisation of Services — Casual Workers — Supreme Court held that casual workers who were similarly situated to those whose services had been regularised in previous judgments, should also have their services regularised. The Court noted that the work performed was perennial and fundamental to the functioning of the department, and that excluding these workers amounted to discrimination. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 438 — Anticipatory Bail — Absconding accused — General rule is that an absconder is not entitled to anticipatory bail, exception being when court is prima facie satisfied that no case is made out against the accused after perusing FIR, case diary, and other materials — Accused absconded for almost six and a half years, threatened victim, had criminal antecedents, and was not traceable — Acquittal of co-accused does not automatically entitle absconding accused to anticipatory bail, as prosecution is not expected to adduce evidence against absconding accused during trial of co-accused — Granting anticipatory bail to an absconding accused sets a bad precedent

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…

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.…

Service Matters

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…

(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.…

You missed