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)

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24 – Additional amount of penal interest must be paid in place of shifting the date for determination of the amount of compensation or to determine the compensation as per 2013 Act.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH REDDY VEERANA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vineet Saran and J.K. Maheshwari, JJ. ) Civil…

Section 124A of IPC – – All pending trials, appeals and proceedings with respect to the charge framed under Section 124A of IPC be kept in abeyance. Adjudication with respect to other Sections, if any, could proceed if the Courts are of the opinion that no prejudice would be caused to the accused. HELD We hope and expect that the State and Central Governments will restrain from registering any FIR, continuing any investigation or taking any coercive measures by invoking Section 124A of IPC

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION N.V. RAMANA; CJI., SURYA KANT; J., HIMA KOHLI; J. MAY 11, 2022 S.G. VOMBATKERE Versus UNION OF INDIA Indian Penal Code,…

Quashing of proceedings – Money Laundering – HELD till the allegations are proved, the appellant would be innocent – High Court by the impugned order has recorded the finding without due consideration of the letter of the I.T. Department and other material in right perspective – Proceedings quashed – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH J.SEKAR @SEKAR REDDY — Appellant Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT — Respondent ( Before : Vineet Saran and J.K. Maheshwari, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…

Appointment of Arbitrator – Absence of Written Agreement – HELD the parties themselves agreed on a procedure for appointment of the arbitrator and appointed and nominated an arbitrator by mutual consent – Therefore, the application under section 11(6) of the Act, 1996 was not maintainable at all.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH SWADESH KUMAR AGARWAL — Appellant Vs. DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL AND OTHERS, ETC., ETC. — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…

You missed