Latest Post

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 197(1) — Requirement of sanction for prosecution of public servants — Protection under Section 197(1) applies only to public servants who are not removable from office except by or with the sanction of the government — Subordinate police officers not falling under this category are not entitled to the benefit of this protection, even if the alleged offence was committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty. Service Law — Dismissal from Service — Disciplinary Proceedings — Violation of Natural Justice — Requirement of Oral Enquiry — Employer’s Burden of Proof — The Apex Court held that unless the charged employee clearly admits guilt, a disciplinary enquiry must be held — The employer must first present evidence and witnesses, allowing the employee to cross-examine — Only then should the employee be given an opportunity to present their defense — The Court emphasized that relying solely on documents without examining witnesses or making them available for cross-examination when charges are denied, vitiates the enquiry. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 9 Rule 13 — Setting aside an ex parte decree — A minor who was not properly represented in succession proceedings, despite being a legal heir and known to respondents, can file an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC after attaining majority to challenge the ex parte proceedings. Companies Act, 2013 — Section 185 — Loan to directors — Violation of Section 185 — Loan from company to director for securing bail without special resolution — Deposit of Rs. 50 Crores for bail sourced from company funds without proper approval — Held to be not sustainable in law. Contract Law — Termination and Blacklisting — Principles of Judicial Review — Courts must apply distinct standards of legality, rationality, and proportionality when reviewing administrative actions related to contract termination and blacklisting, considering the differing gravity of these measures and their consequences.

Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 HELD we are of the opinion that Rule 5 cannot be said to be inconsistent with Section 15(2) of the Act. However, on merits and for the reasons stated above, we are in complete agreement with the ultimate view taken by the learned Single Judge confirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court upholding the acquisition in question.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH M. MOHAN — Appellant Vs. THE STATE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…

Service Matters

HELD reinstatement of an employee who was dismissed as a result of disciplinary proceedings, and was only reinstated in service because of his acquittal in criminal proceedings, but again the reasons which weighed with the Court in such cases were that in almost in all such cases, the acquittal was an honourable acquittal and not an acquittal on a technicality, or on acquittal given because of “benefit of doubt”.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. PHOOL SINGH — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ. )…

Service Matters

Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2009 – The amendment with retrospective effect is to make the benevolent provisions equally applicable to teachers – The amendment seeks to bring equality and give fair treatment to the teachers – It can hardly be categorised as an arbitrary and high-handed exercise – Appeal Dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS FEDERATION OF INDIA (REGD.) — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M.…

Service Matters

HJS – HELD board which conducted the viva­voce of the candidates who qualified in the written examination was different, there are hardly candidates who had qualified against the number of vacancies and it would be advisable that there should be one common board to evaluate the performance of all the candidates who may now qualify in the revised declaration of the result of written examination and that, would do justice to the candidates – Appeal Allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH HARKIRAT SINGH GHUMAN — Appellant Vs. PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ.…

Service Matters

Inter-departmental communication cannot be treated to be a letter of allotment – Even if it is considered to be a letter of allotment, the writ petitioner-wife of the ex-serviceman, who died in July 1998 could not claim possession on the basis of such communication after more than 30 years in terms of the Rules applicable for allotment of land to the disabled ex-servicemen.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH MAHADEO AND OTHERS — Appellant SMT. SOVAN DEVI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and Vikram Nath, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

(NDPS) – Section 54 of the Act raises a presumption and the burden shifts on the accused to explain as to how he came into possession of the contraband – But to raise the presumption under Section 54 of the Act, it must first be established that a recovery was made from the accused.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH SANJEET KUMAR SINGH @ MUNNA KUMAR SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ.…

Service Matters

Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 – Section 5(1) – Sub-section (1) of Section 5 confers an entitlement on a woman to the payment of maternity benefits at a stipulated rate for the period of her actual absence beginning from the period immediately preceding the day of her delivery, the actual day of her delivery and any period immediately following that day.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH DEEPIKA SINGH — Appellant Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and A S Bopanna, JJ.…

(IPC) – Ss 405, 415 and 420 – The offence of criminal breach of trust contains two ingredients: (i) entrusting any person with property, or with any dominion over property; and (ii) the person entrusted dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property to the detriment of the person who entrusted it.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH M N G BHARATEESH REDDY — Appellant Vs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and A S…

You missed