Latest Post

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 168 — Just Compensation — Award of compensation for prosthetic limb — No fixed guidelines for compensation amount — Courts can deviate from governmental notifications if they are too low — Emphasis on “restitutio in integrum” principle to restore the claimant as close as possible to their pre-injury state — Claimants are entitled to choose private centres for prosthetic limbs and renewal costs should be considered — Compensation can be awarded for periodic replacement and maintenance of prosthetic limbs. Dispute over cadre change versus mere transfer — A transfer is a change of posting within the same service without altering seniority or substantive status, differing from a cadre change which involves a structural shift between services with significant implications for seniority and promotional avenues, requiring specific authority. Evidence Act, 1872 — Eyewitness testimony vs. Medical evidence — In case of conflict, eyewitness testimony, especially of an injured witness who is found to be reliable and has withstood cross — examination, is generally superior to expert medical opinion formed by an expert witness — Lack of independent witnesses does not automatically compromise the prosecution case, especially when societal realities suggest potential fear or hesitation Protracted Government Inaction and Third — Party Rights — Despite an initial timeline of two months for an inquiry and subsequent hopes for completion within six months, the government showed significant delay, stretching over six years without a final decision — During this period, extensive third — party rights were created through land sales and construction of villas and flats by innocent purchasers — The Court observed that it’s inappropriate for a welfare state to attempt to undo decades — old transactions, especially when innocent citizens have invested their hard — earned money, and basic amenities should not be denied to occupants of constructed properties. Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 vs. Government Grants Act, 1895 — Relationship Governed by Grant — A lease originating from a Government grant, as governed by the Government Grants Act, 1895, is not subject to the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 — The incidence and enforceability of such a grant are governed solely by its tenor — The legal character of the grant does not derive from conventional landlord — tenant relationships but from the sovereign grant and its embedded conditions — Therefore, eviction proceedings under the Delhi Rent Control Act are not maintainable for holdings originating from a Government grant.
Service Matters

If it is found that the employee had suppressed or given false information in regard to the matters having a bearing on his fitness or suitability to the post, he can be terminated from service. – the scope of judicial review cannot be extended to the examination of correctness or reasonableness of a decision of authority as a matter of fact.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH EX-CONST/DVR MUKESH KUMAR RAIGAR — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ.…

Default bail – In a case where an accused is released on default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., and thereafter on filing of the chargesheet, a strong case is made out and on special reasons being made out from the chargesheet that the accused has committed a non-bailable crime bail can be cancelled on merits

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE THROUGH CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION — Appellant Vs. T. GANGI REDDY @ YERRA GANGI REDDY — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah…

Service Matters

Selection list for the posts of Assistant Radio Officers in the Uttar Pradesh Police Radio Department. – held and direct that the seniority of the candidates including the appellants should be determined treating the entry into the cadre of both sets of candidates (i.e. promotees and direct recruits) on 30th January 1996 and the seniority position should be recast on that basis.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUSHIL PANDEY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. THR. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (HOME) AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and…

Himachal Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1972 – Section 3A(3) – Levy of Additional Special Road Tax – Constitutional Validity – Tax imposed under Section 3A(3) is regulatory in character and is not a penalty – Legislatures of the State have not only the power to make laws on the taxation to be imposed on motor vehicles as also the passengers and goods being transported by motor vehicles but also the power to lay down principles on which taxes on vehicles are to be levied –

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. GOEL BUS SERVICE KULLU ETC. ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul,…

You missed