Latest Post

Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008; Seventh Central Pay Commission Recommendations — Non-Functional Upgradation (NFU) to Level 9 — Recommendation 7.4.13 (iv) (b) — Eligibility criteria — Completion of four years in Level 8 on seniority-cum-suitability basis — Interpretation of — Held, denial of NFU on the ground that Junior Engineers did not enter service at Grade Pay of Rs — 4,800/- amounts to adding an additional condition not contemplated by the recommendation. Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA) — Section 37A — Seizure of assets — Adjudication proceedings are independent of seizure proceedings — The order of the Competent Authority confirming seizure of equivalent assets continues until the disposal of adjudication proceedings — The Adjudicating Authority then passes appropriate directions regarding further action on the seizure — However, this does not apply to a situation where seizure has not been confirmed. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11 — Appointment of Arbitrator — Scope of jurisdiction under Section 11 is confined to existence of an arbitration agreement — Issue of res judicata not considered at Section 11 stage — Principles of Order 23 Rule 1 of CPC apply to proceedings under Section 11 — A fresh application under Section 11 is not maintainable if the earlier application was withdrawn without liberty to file a fresh one. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 197(1) — Requirement of sanction for prosecution of public servants — Protection under Section 197(1) applies only to public servants who are not removable from office except by or with the sanction of the government — Subordinate police officers not falling under this category are not entitled to the benefit of this protection, even if the alleged offence was committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty. Service Law — Dismissal from Service — Disciplinary Proceedings — Violation of Natural Justice — Requirement of Oral Enquiry — Employer’s Burden of Proof — The Apex Court held that unless the charged employee clearly admits guilt, a disciplinary enquiry must be held — The employer must first present evidence and witnesses, allowing the employee to cross-examine — Only then should the employee be given an opportunity to present their defense — The Court emphasized that relying solely on documents without examining witnesses or making them available for cross-examination when charges are denied, vitiates the enquiry.

HELD (1) The entire property 5/1 Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, is deattached. The order dated 15.12.2017 is modified to such extent; (2) The application for impleadement filed by Mrs. Manju Awasty is disposed of; (3) The restriction imposed on Mrs. Monica Gogia, bona fide buyer and owner of C-1/2 Vasant Vihar, New Delhi from transferring the property as captioned, is vacated.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RITIKA AWASTY — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Krishna Murari and Sanjay Karol, JJ. ) I.A. Nos.…

HELD for the principle of determining the guilt of the accused in a case involving circumstantial evidence is not that of probability but certainty and that all the evidence present should conclusively point towards only a singular hypothesis, which is the guilt of the accused – Appeal allowed judgement HC set aside

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MAGHAVENDRA PRATAP SINGH @ PANKAJ SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sanjay Karol, JJ )…

There is absolutely no warrant for the High Court to direct that the investigation of a person who has been interrogated as a suspect in the conspiracy should be in the printed or written form – or questionnaire may also be handed over to the respondent – Appeal allowed anticipatory bail rejected

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUNEETHA NARREDDY — Appellant Vs. Y S AVINASH REDDY AN ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI. and Pamidighantam Sri…

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Sections 143(1)(a) and 143(3) – Jurisdiction of AO to assess or reassess the ‘total income’ – Once during search undisclosed income is found on unearthing the incriminating material during the search, the AO would assume jurisdiction to assess or reassess the total income even in case of completed/unabated assessments.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-3 — Appellant Vs. ABHISAR BUILDWELL P. LTD. — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ.…

(CrPC) – Section 482 – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 147, 148, 149, 452, 324, 307, 342 and 506 – Quashing of FIR – the irresistible conclusion to be drawn by this court is to accept the report of the jurisdictional police where under they have arrived at a conclusion that incident projected by the complainant appears to be false, and thereby the proceedings against the appellant deserves to be quashed – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RITU TOMAR — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Aravind Kumar, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

(IPC) – Sections 302, 397 and 450 – Murder – Conviction and sentence – identification of the accused by the witnesses present but also their apprehension and arrest, apart from seizure of the stolen gold ornaments and cash from their possession, it is amply clear that there was no time or possibility for the police to hoist a false case upon them

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DAKKATA BALARAM REDDY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjay Kumar,…

(IPC) – Sections 302, 364A, 201, read with Section 120B – Kidnapping for ransom and murder – In view of the totality of the facts and circumstances, and for the reasons, this court is of the opinion that it would be appropriate to modify the sentence awarded to both appellants to a minimum term of 20 years actual imprisonment – Appeals partly allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VIKAS CHAUDHARY — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF DELHI — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

You missed