Latest Post

Hindu female’s property devolves equally on husband and daughter separately; gift of undivided coparcenary share needs no co-owner’s consent. A. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — Section 15(1)(a) — Devolution of Female Intestate’s Property — Properties of a Hindu female dying intestate devolve, in the absence of sons/daughters’ issue predeceasing her, upon her husband and daughter in equal shares under Section 15(1)(a); such undivided share in the husband’s hands does not partake the character of coparcenary property. Armed Forces — Air Force Order No. 33/2017 — Prior Permission for Civil Post — Mandatory Nature — Requirement of seeking prior permission before applying for a civil post, and subsequent grant of NOC, held mandatory and not merely procedural/directory, since AFO 33/2017 has necessary nexus with regulating premature discharge of Airmen and its object of maintaining operational preparedness of the Air Force. Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Deficiency of Service — Maintenance Contractor’s Liability — Elevator Malfunction — Comprehensive maintenance contractor, being both manufacturer and repair contractor with exclusive technical knowledge of safety interlocks and brake mechanisms, held principally deficient in service for failing to act on its own identified remedy (voltage stabiliser) despite repeated notice of persistent malfunction over several months preceding fatal accident. Public Service Commission consultation before extending officiating appointment is directory not mandatory; ad-hoc service counts towards seniority computation. A. Uttaranchal Civil Services (Executive Branch) Rules, 2005 — Rule 24(4) — Uttaranchal Public Service Commission (Limitations of Functions) Regulations, 2003 — Regulation 5(a) — Nature of Requirement — Requirement of consulting Commission before continuation of officiating appointment beyond one year held directory, not mandatory, applying the classic test of statutory construction; non-compliance does not invalidate the appointment where treating it as void would cause serious inconvenience to persons with no control over the defaulting authority. Reinstated judicial officer entitled to Selection/Super Time Scale despite missing ACRs; employer cannot benefit from its own wrongful discharge. A. Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 — Rules 49, 50 — Full Court Resolution dated 15.01.2011 — Selection Scale/Super Time Scale — Application on facts — Applying the valid ACRs for 2013 and 2014 (Parts I & II) — all rated “Very Good”/”Good” with integrity certified — the Judicial Officer, having completed five years’ notional service considering reinstatement with continuity, was held entitled to Selection Scale with effect from 16.07.2018 and, upon three years therein, Super Time Scale with effect from 16.07.2021, aligned with the dates of eligibility applied to junior officers.
Service Matters

Judicial officers Pension – – SCOI vide Orders dated 27.07.2022 and 18.01.2023 already directed that all arrears of pay be cleared by 30.06.2023 – In this regard, it is directed that compliance affidavits must be filed by all States and Union Territories by 30.07.2023 that the arrears of pay have been positively credited into the accounts of the concerned officers

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI., V. Ramasubramanian…

‘Jallikattu’ and ‘Bullock Cart Race’ is upheld – Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 2017 does not go contrary to the Articles 51-A (g) and 51-A(h) and it does not violate the provisions of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India – Tamil Nadu Amendment Act is not a piece of colourable legislation

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CONSTITUTION BENCH THE ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph, Ajay…

Acquittal – Murder – Testimony of witness – Mere chance witness, whose presence at the spot, at that hour, is not satisfactorily explained therefore, bearing in mind that he kept silent for unusually long i.e. for more than three and a half months, his testimony is not worthy of any credit

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAVI MANDAL — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND — Respondent ( Before : Hrishikesh Roy and Manoj Misra, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.511 of…

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 4 – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24(2) – Subsequent buyer of the property after issuance of the notification under Section 4 the 1894 Act has no locus to invoke Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI — Appellant Vs. RAVINDER KUMAR JAIN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal,…

You missed