Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Limitation Act does not apply to the institution of civil suit in the Civil Court – National Commission has grossly erred in observing in the impugned order that the complainant would be at liberty to seek remedy in the competent Civil Court and that if he chooses to bring an action in a Civil Court, he is free to file an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUNIL KUMAR MAITY — Appellant Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ.…
If a property of a male Hindu dying intestate is a self acquired property or obtained in partition of a co-parcenery or a family property, the same would devolve by inheritance and not by survivorship, and a daughter of such a male Hindu would be entitled to inherit such property in preference to other collaterals. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Sections 14 and 15 – Partition of properties – Right of daughter to father’s property – If death of father in prior to enforcement of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Law of inheritance under Hindu Succession Act, 1956 are applicable.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ARUNACHALA GOUNDER (DEAD) BY LRS — Appellant Vs. PONNUSAMY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari, JJ. )…
Held, In evaluating whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his obligations under the contract, it is not only necessary to view whether he had the financial capacity to pay the balance consideration, but also assess his conduct throughout the transaction – the escalation of the price of the suit property, and whether one party will unfairly benefit from the decree – Remedy provided must not cause injustice to a party, specifically when they are not at fault.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHENBAGAM AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. KK RATHINAVEL — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Argument on lack of prior approval as per Section 17(2) of the ESI Act is obviated by the preamble to the ESIC Recruitment Regulations 2015 – Contesting respondents have only supported the applicability of the DACP Scheme to claim promotion as Associate Professor after two years of service – Advertisements for recruitment mentioning the DACP Scheme would have no effect since they were in contravention of the applicable recruitment regulations – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE EMPLOYEES’ STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and A.S.…
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been incorporated into the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 -HELD High Court erred in holding that in view of the repeal of LA Act by coming into force of 2013 Act, the corresponding provisions of 2013 Act would regulate acquisition proceedings under the BDA Act and that this would include determination of compensation in accordance with 2013 Act
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Abdul Nazeer and Sanjiv…
Punjab Police Rules, 1934 – Rules 13.7, 13.7(9) and 13.7(14) – Promotion – Head Constable to Superintendent of Police (SP) – Quota of outstanding performance – Held, Recommendation of Departmental Promotion Committee (CDP) headed by the SP is final and that the IG has no power to review or substitute the decision is misconceived –
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUSHIL KUMAR — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ. )…
Dismissal from service – Fraud and manipulating of signatures of complainant -Respondent was a clerk-cum-cashier. It is a post of confidence. The respondent breached that confidence – In fact, the respondent breached the trust of a widowed sister-in-law as well as of the bank, making it hardly a case for interference either on law or on moral grounds – Conduct established of the respondent did not entitle him to continue in service.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. OM PRAKASH LAL SRIVASTAVA — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh, JJ.…
Competition Act, 2002 – Sections 2(u) 3 and 4 read with Section 19(1)(a) – Complaint – Lottery business can continue to be regulated by the Regulation Act – If in the tendering process there is an element of anti-competition which would require investigation by the CCI, that cannot be prevented under the pretext of the lottery business being res extra commercium, more so when the State Government decides to deal in lotteries.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh, JJ.…
Trade Marks Act, 1999 – 29 and 30 – Infringement of the trade mark – Permanent injunction – When the trade mark of the defendant is identical with the registered trade mark of the plaintiff and that the goods or services of the defendant are identical with the goods or services covered by registered trade mark, the Court shall presume that it is likely to cause confusion on the part of the public
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH RENAISSANCE HOTEL HOLDINGS INC. — Appellant Vs. B. VIJAYA SAI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and B.V.…
Insulting or Abusing SC-ST Person – Quantum of sentence – Appellant and his family members were insisting that the de facto complainant should vacate the shop in her possession – Reason for the incident appears to be the dispute over the said shop -Considering these facts and the fact that the appellant has already undergone a sentence for more than 9 months, this is a fit case where the substantive sentence should be reduced to rigorous imprisonment for 1 year – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VETRIVEL — Appellant Vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S.…