![[Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980, S. 13(4)] – [A waitlisted candidate cannot claim appointment to an alternative post after failing to join the initially recommended post, particularly after the repeal of the Old Act.] A. Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 (Old Act) vs. Uttar Pradesh Education Service Selection Commission Act, 2023 (New Act) — Comparative Analysis — Held, the New Act does not prescribe a power to the Director akin to Section 13(4) of the Old Act — After the commencement of the New Act, the validity of the list/panel under the Old Act lapses, and authorities are bound to follow the procedure under Sections 10 and 11 of the New Act.](https://i0.wp.com/sclaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Service-Matters.jpg?resize=150%2C150&ssl=1)
![[MPID Act, S. 2(c) & 2(d)] – Amounts advanced with promise of return and interest qualify as “deposit” accepted by “financial establishment” under the Act. – Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 Section 2(c) and Section 2(d) — Deposit and Financial Establishment — Amounts advanced to individuals with promise of repayment with interest constitute a “deposit” under Section 2(c) and the recipients are “financial establishments” under Section 2(d) of the MPID Act, irrespective of the transaction being termed as a “loan” — The nomenclature of the transaction is not determinative; the essential attributes of the transaction are key.](https://i0.wp.com/sclaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/State-Laws.jpg?resize=150%2C150&ssl=1)
Lakhimpur Kheri Violence Case – HELD (i) irrelevant considerations having impacted the impugned order granting bail; (ii) the High Court exceeding its jurisdiction by touching upon the merits of the case; (iii) denial of victims’ right to participate in the proceedings; and (iv) the tearing hurry shown by the High Court in entertaining or granting bail to the respondent/accused; can rightfully cancel the bail,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH JAGJEET SINGH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. ASHISH MISHRA @ MONU AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, Surya Kant and Hima…
Once the execution of agreement to sell and the payment of advance substantial sale consideration is admitted by the vendor, nothing further is required to be proved by the vendee.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION M.R. SHAH; B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2095 OF 2022; April 11, 2022 P. Ramasubbamma Versus V. Vijayalakshmi & Ors.…
Summons/notices issued by the learned Trial Court were returned ‘unclaimed’ – exparte decree -entire decretal amount is deposited by the appellants to show their bonafides – one more opportunity granted to defend bank suit
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S JERSEY DEVELOPERS (P) LIMITED AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. CANARA BANK — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. )…
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000 – Subsection (2) of Section 7A provided that if after holding an inquiry, the Court found the accused to be juvenile on the date of commission of the offence, the Court was under a mandate to forward the juvenile to the Juvenile Justice Board for passing appropriate orders. Subsection (2) of Section 7A further provided that in such a case, the sentence passed by Criminal Court shall be deemed to have no effect in such a case. Accused shall be forthwith set at liberty
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANJAY PATEL AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Abhay S. Oka, JJ.…
Selection and appointment – Cancellation – Once having found that the respective writ petitioners-appellants herein were not having the requisite qualification as per the advertisement, namely, the Postgraduate/Bachelor degree in History, which was the requirement as per the advertisement and thereafter their candidature was canceled.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH INDRESH KUMAR MISHRA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna,…
Bihar Private Medical (Indian System of Medicine) College (Taking over) Act, 1985 – Section 6(2) – Determination of terms of the teaching staff and other employees of the College – HELD State Government made its intention clear that as the decision has been taken to absorb the employee/teacher of the private Ayurvedic college as on 01st June, 1986,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HARISH CHANDRA SHRIVASTAVA — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ.…
Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation — HELD by the time an application is preferred u/S 12 of the Act, there is no offence committed in terms of the provisions of the Act and as such there would never be a starting point for limitation from the date of application under Section 12 of the Act – Such a starting point for limitation would arise only and only after there is a breach of an order passed under Section 12 of the Act
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KAMATCHI — Appellant Vs. LAKSHMI NARAYANAN — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 627…
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 19(1)(g) – Right to establish an educational institution can be regulated – HELD Fixing of a rigid fee structure, dictating the formation and composition of a governing body, compulsory nomination of teachers and staff for appointment or nominating students for admissions would be unacceptable restrictions.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. BIYANI SHIKSHAN SAMITI AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai, JJ.…
Writ by victims of fire tragedy – claimed the lives of 65 persons and left 161 or more with burn injuries. -Held that where the plaintiff can prove the accident but cannot prove how it happened to establish negligence on the part of the defendant, such hardship is sought to be avoided by applying the principle of res ipsa loquitor.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANJAY GUPTA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta…
Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001- Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 106 A decree passed by the civil court is valid and executable which is not interdicted by the applicability of the Act to the area in question. The Act is applicable to the area in question from the date the notification came into force and it does not bar the decree of the civil court or the pendency of such civil suit.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHANKARLAL NADANI — Appellant Vs. SOHANLAL JAIN — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 2816 of…