Waqf Act, 1995 – Section 83(9) – Revisional jurisdiction – Subsection (9) of Section 83 which confers a revisional jurisdiction upon the High Court, is meant to confer a jurisdiction narrower than the jurisdiction of an appellate Court.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH P. NAZEER ETC. — Appellant Vs. SALAFI TRUST AND ANOTHER ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. ) Civil…
Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 68 – Genuineness of execution of Will – In the matter of appreciating the genuineness of execution of a Will, there is no place for the Court to see whether the distribution made by the testator was fair and equitable to all of his children – The Court does not apply Article 14 to dispositions under a Will.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SWARNALATHA AND OTHERS @APPELANT Vs. KALAVATHY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 1565…
Section 67 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 makes it clear that if any promisee neglects or refuses to afford the promisor reasonable facilities for the performance of his promise, the promisor is excused by such neglect or refusal – Refusal of a contractor to continue to execute the work, unless the reciprocal promises are performed by the other party, cannot be termed as abandonment of contract
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHRIPATI LAKHU MANE — Appellant Vs. THE MEMBER SECRETARY, MAHARASHTRA WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta…
HELD we consider it appropriate to observe that let the respondent teachers may continue for the time being and the appellants may initiate the process to consider the respondent teachers for pay band of Rs. 37400-67000 with AGP Rs.9000 and for re-designation as Associate Professor in terms of the guidelines dated 14th March, 2012 and 18th March 2013. Such exercise may be undertaken within a period of four months
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. OM PRAKASH RAHI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S.…
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 – Objections under Section 34 of the Act did require consideration and in-depth examination and should not have been dismissed without proper and full application of mind with reference to the provisions of the Limitation Act and the Act.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KARNAL — Appellant Vs. M/S. MEHTA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Sanjiv Khanna,…
Motor Accident Claims – Accident – Victim was 5 years old – Paraplegic patient – Enhancement of Compensation – No compensation is warranted to be payable under the heading “food and nourishment or towards loss of childhood” as it stands subsumed in the compensation assessed under the other different heads
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MASTER AYUSH — Appellant Vs. BRANCH MANAGER, RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMTED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian,…
IBC, 2016 – Applicability of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 – While applying Section 18 of the Limitation Act, even went to the extent of holding that an entry in the balance sheet of the company could also be treated as an acknowledgment in writing, subject however to any caveat found in the accompanying reports – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SVG FASHIONS PRIVATE LIMTED (EARLIER KNOWN AS SVG FASHIONS LIMTED — Appellant Vs. RITU MURLI MANOHAR GOYAL AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before :…
Such communication has come on record from the official source which would carry presumption of correctness under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 that the official acts have been regularly performed. The original record was not necessarily required to be proved by summoning the Government officials as such document was produced by the officials of the Municipal Committee from the official record.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, BARWALA, DISTRICT HISAR, HARYANA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY/PRESIDENT — Appellant Vs. JAI NARAYAN AND COMPANY AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before :…
Division Bench of the High Court is absolutely justified in reserving liberty in favour of the State to recover the amount paid in excess to the original writ petitioners. It is required to be noted that even while reserving liberty to recover the amount paid in excess, the Division Bench has observed that the same be recovered in easy equal installments.
DIVISION BENCH MEKHA RAM AND OTHERS ETC. ETC. — Appellant Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS ETC. ETC. — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. )…
Once it is admitted, (i) that the disciplinary proceedings commenced with an Inquiry Committee of which the President was a member; and (ii) that subsequently he was replaced by someone due to ill health, the doctrine of necessity would come into play. Hence the impugned orders of the High Court and the School Tribunal are liable to be reversed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAI BHAVANI SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL — Appellant Vs. RAMESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. ) Civil…