HELD the very objectives of holding back pension or the DCRG. One can be to recover the amounts found due from the delinquent employee of any nature whatsoever after appropriate notice and proceedings. The second eventuality is if an employee is dismissed from service. It can hardly be doubted that in the second eventuality of the dismissal from service the employee would lose all retirement benefits.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS ETC. — Appellant Vs. K. CHANDRAN ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and…
In proceedings initiated under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1978 the possession of excess urban land was taken over well before the Repeal Act came into force. In the premises, the Writ Petition filed by the present Review Petitioner was found to be without any substance
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH P. CHANDRIKA — Appellant Vs. THE COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER OF URBAN LAND CEILING AND URBAN LAND TAX AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Uday…
“Consequently, insofar as “Extension of time to complete investigation” is concerned, the Magistrate would not be competent to consider the request and the only competent authority to consider such request would be “the Court” as specified in the proviso in Section 43-D(b) of the UAPA. In view of the law laid down by this Court, we accept the plea raised by the appellants and hold them entitled to the relief of default bail as prayed for.”
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Appellant Vs. SADIQUE AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, S.Ravindrabhat and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ.…
HELD It is also contrary to the stated objective sought to be achieved by Para 3 of the 1986 OM, which is to “present practice of keeping vacant slots for being filled up by direct recruits of later years, thereby giving them unintended seniority over promotees who are already in position, would be dispensed with. ” The promotions of the PRIs before this court therefore, have to be treated as regular. HC was in error.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH B.S. MURTHY AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. A. RAVINDER SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and…
Infringement of trade mark and passing off – Held, Though by postponement of the issue with regard to grant of adinterim injunction, the order might have caused some inconvenience and may be, to some extent, prejudice to the respondent-plaintiff; the same could not be treated as a ‘judgment’ inasmuch as there was no conclusive finding as to whether the respondentplaintiff was entitled for grant of adinterim injunction or not
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHYAM SEL AND POWER LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SHYAM STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R.…
Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatagram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 – Gwalior Development Authority – determining seniority w.e.f. 1994, when first respondent would complete 12 years as Sub Engineer, it is tied up with the issue of the illegality of his promotion in 1987 without completing 12 years. More importantly, even proceeding to discern any merit that seniority should, at least, be governed with reference to the requirement of 12 years, in the facts of this case, in facts of case dismissed
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GWALIOR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY GWALIOR — Appellant Vs. SUBHASH SAXENA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : K.M Joseph and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ. )…
Delhi Judicial Service Rules 1970 – Rule 14(c) – HELD permit the High Court as a one-time measure to allow those candidates who were within the age cut-off of 45 years during the recruitment years 2020 and 2021 to participate in the ensuing DHJS examinations – the last date for the receipt of applications shall stand extended to 26 March 2022 while the examination shall be held on 3 April 2022, in those terms
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH HIGH COURT OF DELHI — Appellant Vs. DEVINA SHARMA — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, A S Bopanna and Hima Kohli,…
(CPC) – Order 7 Rule 11 – Rejection of plaint – plaintiffs claimed the relief in the suit invoking Section 53A of the TP Act – Only in a case where on the face of it, it is seen that the suit is barred by limitation, then and then only a plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC on the ground of limitation.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SRI BISWANATH BANIK AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SMT. SULANGA BOSE AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…
HELD When bail has been granted to an accused, the State may, if new circumstances have arisen following the grant of such bail, approach the High Court seeking cancellation of bail under section 439 (2) of the CrPC – OR the State may prefer an appeal against the order granting bail, on the ground that the same is perverse or illegal or has been arrived at by ignoring material aspects which establish a prima facie case against the accused.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KAMLA DEVI — Appellant Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 – Section 4A(3) – HELD Therefore, on the death of the employee/deceased immediately, the amount of compensation can be said to be falling due. Therefore, the liability to pay the compensation would arise immediately on the death of the deceased.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHOBHA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE CHAIRMAN, VITHALRAO SHINDE SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and…