Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1955 – Rule 35(aa) – Seniority being consequential has been rightly assigned to the compassionate appointees, visavis, direct recruits as reflected in the seniority list which is in conformity with Rule 35(aa) of Rules 1955:
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M. KENDRA DEVI — Appellant Vs. THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka,…
(CrPC) – Section 319 – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 – Murder – Summoning as accused — crucial test to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SAGAR — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
Promotion to a post should only be granted from the date of promotion and not from the date on which vacancy has arisen.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. MANPREET SINGH POONAM ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh, JJ.…
Service Law – ACP benefit – Some employees could have benefitted more under the ACP benefits, if the MACP scheme had not been introduced from an earlier date, is no ground to hold so and compel an executive agency to grant the claimed benefits.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH THE VICE CHAIRMAN DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — Appellant Vs. NARENDER KUMAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindrabhat and…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 148 and 302 – Murder – Merely because the witnesses were the relatives of the deceased, their evidence cannot be discarded – Order of acquittal cannot be sustained.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M. NAGESWARA REDDY — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…
Murder – Common intention – Appeal against acquittal – Once it has been established and proved by the prosecution that all the accused came at the place of incident with a common intention to kill the deceased and as such, they shared the common intention, in that case it is immaterial whether any of the accused who shared the common intention had used any weapon or not and/or any of them caused any injury on the deceased or not – State appeal allowed
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF M.P. — Appellant Vs. RAMJI LAL SHARMA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Criminal…
(CrPC) – Section 108, 109, 110, 111, 117 and 122 – On violation, recourse, specified under Section 122 Cr.P.C. is permissible – HELD authorities to take action for violation of peace and tranquility in public order by the citizens of the locality, otherwise, by following the procedure as prescribed, the action may be taken by the competent authority.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DEVADASSAN — Appellant Vs. THE SECOND CLASS EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE, RAMANATHAPURAM AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and J.K. Maheshwari, JJ. )…
Service Law – Interest on delayed payment – There was a delay in making the payment of retirement benefits and settling the dues for which the employee is not at all responsible, he is entitled to the interest on the delayed payment.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH A. SELVARAJ — Appellant Vs. C.B. M. COLLEGE AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 – Confiscation of the appellant’s truck when he is acquitted in the Criminal prosecution, amounts to arbitrary deprivation of his property and violates the right guaranteed to each person under Article 300A – Therefore, the District Magistrate’s order of Confiscation (ignoring the Trial Court’s judgment of acquittal), is not only arbitrary but also inconsistent with the legal requirements
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ABDUL VAHAB — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…
Contract Act, 1872 – Section 65 – Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 – Section 18 – Refund of Entry Fee – If the party claiming restitution was equally or more responsible for the illegality (in comparison to the defendant), there shall be no cause for restitution
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH LOOP TELECOM AND TRADING LIMITED — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Surya Kant…