Murder – Remission of sentence – Court can review the decision of the government to determine whether it was arbitrary, it cannot usurp the power of the government and grant remission itself
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAM CHANDER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Aniruddha Bose, JJ.…
Claim of back wages HELD It is needless to point out that in the first instance, there is an obligation on the part of the employee to plead that he is not gainfully employed. It is only then that the burden would shift upon the employer to make an assertion and establish the same.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ALLAHABAD BANK AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. AVTAR BHUSHAN BHARTIYA — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. ) Special Leave…
Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons – Conviction and sentence – When a person commits an offence of voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons and means under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code, then such person shall be punished with imprisonment for a period of three years, or with fine
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ANUJ SINGH @ RAMANUJ SINGH @SETH SINGH — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI, Krishna Murari…
Dowry Death – Section 304B IPC read along with Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 makes it clear that once the prosecution has succeeded in demonstrating that a woman has been subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH DEVENDER SINGH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI, A.S. Bopanna and Hima Kohli,…
Service Law – Ad hoc employee – An ad hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc employee and he can be replaced only by another candidate who is regularly appointed by following a regular procedure prescribed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANISH GUPTA AND ANOTHER ETC. ETC. — Appellant Vs. PRESIDENT, JAN BHAGIDARI SAMITI AND OTHERS. ETC. ETC. — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara…
Claim/alleged dues of 1985/1986 HELD High Court has not committed any error in dismissing the application under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act on the ground that it is hopelessly barred by limitation and is a stale claim.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VISHRAM VARU AND COMPANY — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY, KOLKATA — Respondent ( Before :…
Dismissal – Unless and until it is found that the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is shockingly disproportionate and/or there is procedural irregularity in conducting the inquiry, the High Court would not be justified in interfering with the order of punishment.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. — Appellant Vs. SHRI RAJENDRA D. HARMALKAR — Respondent ( Before : M. R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…
Service Law – Teacher is entitled to get the benefits of enhanced age of superannuation of 65 years at par with his counterpart teachers serving in Government Colleges and Universities – Teacher shall be entitled to all consequential and monetary benefits including the arrears of salaries and allowances for the intervening period, as if he would have been retired at the age of 65 years
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DR. JACOB THUDIPARA — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M. R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna,…
HELD Scope of judicial inferences by High court or Tribunals are based on Wednesbury case, (1948) 1 KB 223, it was observed that when a statute gave discretion to an administrator to take a decision, the scope of judicial review would remain limited.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY — Appellant Vs. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, SSB AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. )…
HELD the ground on which the High Court had allowed the review applications was thereafter not available. Under the circumstances, and in view of the subsequent development, which was even pointed out to the High Court while filing the recall application being CMA No. 23091/2017, the order(s) passed by the High Court in Review Petition Nos. 309/2008 and 310/2008 deserve(s) to be quashed and set aside. All appeals allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SH. RAM CHANDER (DEAD) THR LRS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. )…