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…
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24(2) – Lapse of Acquisition proceedings – In case a person has been tendered the compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act, it is not open to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) due to nonpayment – The period of subsistence of interim orders passed by court has to be excluded in the computation of five years.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — Appellant Vs. RAJ AN SOOD AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Civil…
Service Law – Deduction of wages on a pro-rata basis -Workmen had deliberately adopted “go slow” tactics and did not produce the minimum agreed production as per the settlement – “go slow” is nothing but sort of intentional refusal to work
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BATA INDIA LIMITED — Appellant Vs. WORKMEN OF BATA INDIA LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ.…
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 148 – Challenging Re-opening of Assessment – Dismissal of Writ Petition by High Court without giving reasons -An order bereft of reasoning causes prejudice to the parties because it deprives them to know the reasons as to why one party has won and other has lost – Remanded to HC
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VISHAL ASHWIN PATEL — Appellant Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 25(3) AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V.…
Service Law – Regularization with all consequential benefits – There is no heavy financial burden upon the University and at the same time to strike a balance and considering the fact that the respective original writ petitioners have worked for more than 15 to 30 years, if it is ordered that the actual consequential benefits on regularization of their services are restricted to three years prior to filing of the writ petitions
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAI NARAIN VYAS UNIVERSITY, JODHPUR AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. MUKESH SHARMA ETC. ETC. — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna,…