Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 67 – Onerous condition of payment of 50% of the amount awarded will not be applicable to the complaints filed prior to the commencement of the 2019 Act.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ECGC LIMITED — Appellant Vs. MOKUL SHRIRAM EPC JV — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. ) I.A. No. 99210…
Murder – Acquittal – Circumstantial evidence – Burden of proof — Prosecution having failed to prove the basic facts as alleged against the accused, the burden could not be shifted on the accused by pressing into section 106 of the Evidence Act HELD gross error of law in convicting the accused for the alleged crime, merely on the basis of the suspicion, conjectures and surmises – Accused are acquitted.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SATYE SINGH AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and Belam. Trivedi, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
IMP – Commercial Suits – Time limit for filing written statement – in the ordinary circumstances, the mandates of Rule 1(1) of Order V, Rule 1 of Order VIII as also Rule 10 of Order VIII, as applicable to the Commercial dispute of a Specified Value, do operate in the manner that after expiry of 120th day from the date of service of summons, the defendant forfeits the right to submit his written statement and the Court cannot allow the same to be taken on record but
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRAKASH CORPORATES — Appellant Vs. DEE VEE PROJECTS LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No(s).…
Council of Architecture may prescribe minimum standards of architectural education, either by way of regulations issued under Section 45(2) or even otherwise – It is only in cases where the Council chooses to prescribe standards in the form of regulations that the requirement of approval of the Central Government under Section 45(1) would become necessary.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH COUNCIL OF ARCHITECTURE — Appellant Vs. THE ACADEMIC SOCIETY OF ARCHITECTS (TASA) AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian,…
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 – Sections 19, 22, 22(b), 22(c) and 31(5) – Under the MRTP Act, in the Development Plan, the Planning Authority and/or the Appropriate Authority has to make the provisions for the public purposes mentioned in Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 22 and sub-section (5) of Section 31 of the MRTP Act – in the facts and circumstances of this case, when land is found to be unsuitable and unusable for the purposes for which it has been reserved, Corporation cannot be compelled to pay a huge compensation for such a useless and unsuitable land.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE KOLHAPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. VASANT MAHADEV PATIL (DEAD) THROUGH L.R.S AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah…
When the complainant had lodged the FIR immediately after the theft of the vehicle, and when the police after the investigation had arrested the accused and also filed challan before the concerned Court, and when the claim of the insured was not found to be not genuine, the Insurance Company could not have repudiated the claim merely on the ground that there was a delay in intimating the Insurance Company about the occurrence of the theft.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAINA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY — Appellant Vs. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M. Trivedi,…
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 11A – Dismissal form service – Misconduct – Looking into seriousness of the nature of allegations levelled against the employee, the punishment of dismissal inflicted upon him in no manner could be said to be shockingly disproportionate which would have required to be interfered with by the Tribunal in exercise of its power under Section 11A of the Act 1947
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNITED BANK OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. BACHAN PRASAD LALL — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ. ) Civil…
HELD Considering the fact that it can be said to be a case of loss of confidence in the employee by the Bank – It just and proper to substitute the punishment from that of removal of service to that of compulsory retirement – Appellant shall be entitled to all the benefits which may be available to him by converting the punishment from that of removal of service to that of compulsory retirement – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UMESH KUMAR PAHWA — Appellant Vs. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS UTTARAKHAND GRAMIN BANK AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V.…
Reinstatement of woman Additional District Judge, who complained of sexual harassment against the judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and resigned in 2014 – Petitioner’s resignation from the post of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gwalior dated 15th July 2014, cannot be construed to be voluntary – directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith as an Additional District & Sessions Judge
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MS. X — Appellant Vs. REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R.…
Multiplier – Since the deceased was 54 years of age on the date of incident, therefore, the suitable multiplier would be 11 – Thus, the appellants are found entitled to compensation of Rs. 24,33,064/- with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the claim application till realisation.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH R. VALLI AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ.…