HELD It is not in dispute that the appointment of all the applicants/respondents/teachers have been made directly by the respective Management without following the procedure as prescribed under the Rules/Statute. It is a trite law that the appointments made in contravention of the statutory provisions are void ab initio.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF ODISHA AND OTHERS ETC. ETC. — Appellant Vs. SULEKH CHANDRA PRADHAN ETC. ETC. — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and…
Medical Negligence – Merely because doctors could not save the patient, that could not be considered to be a case of post operative medical negligence – A medical practitioner is not to be held liable simply because things went wrong
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DR. (MRS.) CHANDA RANI AKHOURI AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. DR. M.A. METHUSETHUPATHI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay…
Constitution of India , 1950 – Article 300A – Right of a person under Article 300A of the Constitution of India to have the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) benefit to be given on accurate assessment thereof, the employer here being a public sector unit.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHANKAR LAL — Appellant Vs. HINDUSTAN COPPER LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Aniruddha Bose, JJ. )…
It is possible that a false complaint may have been lodged at the behest of a political opponent. However, such possibility would not justify interference under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAMVEER UPADHYAY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. )…
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 14(1) – Sale of Goods Act, 1930 – Section 2(7) – Manufacturer defect – Failure to provide an airbag system which would meet the safety standards as perceived by a carbuyer of reasonable prudence, should be subject to punitive damages which can have deterrent effect.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LIMITED — Appellant Vs. SHAILENDRA BHATNAGAR — Respondent ( Before : Vineet Saran and Aniruddha Bose, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…
Contempt Petition – Non-compliance of directions – Builder is guilty of delaying the construction by not taking suitable steps in complete disobedience of the orders passed by this Court based on its undertaking – Contempt Petition is closed with liberty to the tenants/occupants to approach this Court in case of non-compliance of the directions.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAGDISH MAVJI TANK (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. HARRESH NAVNITRAI MEHTA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao…
Only 10% of the cadre strength of District Judges be filled up by Limited Departmental Competitive Examination with those candidates who have qualified service of 7 years [(5 years as Civil Judge (Junior Division) and 2 years as Civil Judge (Senior Division) or 10 years qualifying service as Civil Judge(Junior Division).
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai…
Territorial jurisdiction – Preliminary issue – When the issue touches the question of territorial jurisdiction, as far as possible the same shall have to be decided first as preliminary issue – Labour Court did not commit any error in deciding the issue with respect to the territorial jurisdiction as a preliminary issue in the first instance.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH V.G. JAGDISHAN — Appellant Vs. M/S. INDOFOS INDUSTRIES LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : M. R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Questions of the grant of bail concern both liberty of individuals undergoing criminal prosecution as well as the interests of the criminal justice system in ensuring that those who commit crimes are not afforded the opportunity to obstruct justice – Bail cancelled.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANISHA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana and Krishna Murari, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…
There is no application of mind at all by the High Court on merits of the order passed by the Tribunal – It can be seen that the High Court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it while exercising the powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India – Matter remand to High Court for deciding the writ petition afresh in accordance with law.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. MAYAN PAL SINGH VERMA — Respondent ( Before : M. R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…