Latest Post

Insurance Law — Fire Insurance Claim — Assessment of Loss — Survey Report — Admissibility and Weightage — Admissibility of Survey Report as Primary Evidence — In insurance claims, a survey report, prepared by an expert after physical inspection, is considered primary and significant evidence — It cannot be disregarded without strong contrary evidence showing arbitrariness or unreasonableness. Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 2(1)(d) — Consumer — A person purchasing a vehicle for business to earn livelihood is a consumer. — Deficiency in service — No deficiency in service if a vehicle model is not available and another available model is given to the buyer as per mutual understanding and agreement, and the buyer fails to make payments for the second vehicle. Regularisation of contractual/ad hoc employees — Notifications dated 16.06.2014 and 18.06.2014, which sought to regularise the services of Group ‘B’, ‘C’, and ‘D’ employees were found to be valid as they aimed to provide benefits to employees left out from a previous regularisation policy and had clear criteria for eligibility such as working on sanctioned posts and possessing necessary qualifications. Environmental Law and Wildlife Protection — Illegal Sand Mining — Supreme Court’s Suo Motu Cognizance — The Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of rampant illegal sand mining in the National Chambal Gharial Sanctuary, recognizing its severe impact on wildlife habitats, including endangered Gharials. The Court issued notices to concerned states and authorities, highlighting that such destruction of habitats violates environmental protection laws like the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Clause 25 of Bill of Lading — Interpretation of “can” — A clause stating that disputes “can be settled by arbitration” does not create a mandatory arbitration agreement — It implies a future possibility and requires further agreement between the parties to refer disputes to arbitration, as opposed to a definitive commitment.

Depositories Act, 1996 – As per the 1996 Regulations, the pledgor/pawnor is not entitled to sell the pledged/pawned securities – the pawnor under the Contract Act and the common law has the right to redeem the pledged goods till ‘actual sale’ – Sale by the pawnee to self does not defeat the right of redemption of the pawnor – It may amount to conversion in law

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED — Appellant Vs. VENKATESWARLU KARI AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ. )…

Service Matters

HELD according to the said University, though the employment was contractual but the employee was entitled to get all the benefits of a regular employee – Appellant’s services could not have been terminated without following the principles of natural justice – Appellant is directed to be reinstated with continuity in service

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

Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code (CPC) gives wide powers to the court to appoint a commissioner to make local investigations which may be requisite or proper for elucidating any matter in dispute, ascertaining the market value of any property, account of mesne profit or damages or annual net profits.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH M.P. RAJYA TILHAN UTPADAK SAHAKARI SANGH MARYADIT, PACHAMA, DISTRICT SEHORE AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M/S. MODI TRANSPORT SERVICE — Respondent ( Before :…

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. )…

You missed