Latest Post

Meritorious reserved category candidates must be considered against unreserved vacancies at the screening stage without availing any concession, prioritizing merit over category bias. The Commission under the WBCE Act has jurisdiction to adjudicate deficiencies in patient care services and qualifications of personnel, distinct from medical negligence handled by State Medical Councils. Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 37(1) — Revenue Expenditure vs. Capital Expenditure — Non-compete fee — Whether payment of non-compete fee constitutes allowable revenue expenditure or capital expenditure — Non-compete fee is paid to restrain a competitor, which protects or enhances the business profitability and facilitates carrying on the business more efficiently — Such payment neither creates a new asset nor increases the profit-earning apparatus for the payer, meaning the enduring advantage, if any, is not in the capital field — The length of time of the advantage is not determinative if the advantage merely facilitates business operations, leaving fixed assets untouched — Payment of non-compete fee made by the appellant (formed as a joint venture) to L&T (previous partner) to restrain L&T from competing for 7 years was essentially to keep a potential competitor out and ensure the appellant operated more efficiently and profitably, without creating a new capital asset or monopoly — Held: Payment of non-compete fee is an allowable revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act. (Paras 16, 25-29) Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 118 — Competency of child witness — Effect of delay and tutoring — Although a minor child is competent to testify, the reliability and evidentiary value of testimony given many years after the event, especially when the child has been residing with the complainant’s family (maternal grandparents), is significantly affected by the high possibility of memory distortion and tutoring. (Paras 5, 7, 10.2) Service Law — High Court Staff — Regularization — Discrimination — Appellants (Operator-cum-Data Entry Assistants/Routine Grade Clerks) appointed by Chief Justice under Rules 8(a)(i), 41, and 45 of Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976 — High Court refused regularization of Appellants while regularizing numerous similarly situated employees appointed through the same channel — Justification based on whether initial appointment was labelled ‘ad-hoc’ or whether appointment letter stipulated an examination — Held, distinction based solely on stipulations in appointment letters, when the channel of appointment and nature of work are identical, is arbitrary, unreasonable, and superficial — Such differential treatment violates Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution, as equals must be treated equally without rational differentia. (Paras 3, 4, 17, 23-28)
Service Matters

When the Pension Regulations and the GPF Scheme are read together, the necessary conclusion is that an employee must give his option for either continuing to be a member of the CPF Scheme or to switch over to the Pension and GPF Scheme. HELD that an employee had no inherent right to demand extension for exercising the switchover option.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH UNIVERSITY OF DELHI — Appellant Vs. SMT. SHASHI KIRAN AND OTHERS ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet Saran, JJ.…

Service Matters

Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 – Section 31 – Termination – Selection of the appellant was done after following the selection procedure as prescribed by the 1973 Act – Appellant had served for a period of 12 years before the order directing his termination was passed by Chancellor – Termination of appellant is not sustainable in law.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH RAM CHANDRA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai, JJ. )…

Minimum Wages – when the earlier notification was issued after following the due procedure as required under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act, 1948, the same procedure ought to have been followed even while varying and/or modifying the notification – Hence, the notification could not have been modified by such an Errata Notification

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH GOMANTAK MAZDOOR SANGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF GOA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Civil…

Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 – Chapter III B – Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958 and the Gujarat Money Lenders Act, 2011 will have no application to Non­Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs) registered under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and regulated by Reserve Bank of India.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH NEDUMPILLI FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. )…

You missed