Daily rated employees are not entitled to the Higher pay scale of Rs.950-1500 with all consequential benefits upon completion of 10 years of service and revised their pay scale as per 5th, 6th and 7th Pay Commission scales on such basis – As per the settled proposition of law the economic viability or the financial capacity of the employer is an important factor while fixing the wage structure,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJESH PRAVINCHANDRA RAJYAGURU AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. GUJARAT WATER SUPPLY & SEWERAGE BOARD AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y.…
Murder – Cancellation of Bail – While considering an application for bail Courts cannot lose sight of the serious nature of the accusations against an accused and the facts that have a bearing in the case, particularly, when the accusations may not be false, frivolous or vexatious in nature but are supported by adequate material brought on record so as to enable a Court to arrive at a prima facie conclusion
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH BRIJMANI DEVI — Appellant Vs. PAPPU KUMAR AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. )…
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 35(1)(c) – Joint complaint – Where a residential apartment is purchased by the husband and wife jointly or by a parent and child jointly. If they have a grievance against the builder, both of them are entitled to file a complaint jointly. Such a complaint will not fall under Section 35(1)(c) but fall under Section 35(1)(a). Persons filing such a complaint cannot be excluded from Section 2(5)(i) on the ground that it is not by a single consumer.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LIMITED — Appellant Vs. ANIL KUMAR VIRMANI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. ) Civil…
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 35(1)(c) – Joint complaint – HELD the proper way of interpreting Section 35(1) read with section 2(5), would be to say that a complaint may be filed: (i) by a single consumer; (ii) by a recognised consumer Association; (iii) by one or more consumers jointly, seeking the redressal of their own grievances without representing other consumers who may or may not have the same interest; (iv) by one or more consumers on behalf of or for the benefit of numerous consumers; and (v) the Central Government, Central Authority or State Authority.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LIMITED — Appellant Vs. ANIL KUMAR VIRMANI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. ) Civil…
M P State Civil Services Rules, 2015 – Rule 4(3)(c)(1) and (2) – Appointment to post of the Chief Municipal Officer – If a candidate is selected in the main list on the basis of the higher priority of the post given by him in the preference sheet, the candidate will not be considered for the remaining post indicated in the preference sheet -The candidate concerned had applied without demur and also furnished a declaration with regard to correctness of details provided. He cannot thereafter turn around to seek alteration of the position to the detriment of others.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MADHYA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION — Appellant Vs. MANISH BAKAWALE AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and A.S. Bopanna,…
Dominant purpose of the IBC is revival of the Corporate Debtor and making it an ongoing concern – Opinion expressed by the CoC after due deliberations in the meetings through voting, as per voting shares, is the collective business decision and that the decision of the CoC’s ‘commercial wisdom’ is non justiciable, except on limited grounds as are available for challenge under Section 30(2) or Section 61(3) of the IBC – Under Section 61(3)(ii) of the IBC, an appeal would be tenable if there has been material irregularity in exercise of the powers by the RP during the corporate insolvency resolution period – Scope of the words ‘material irregularity’, as are found in Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NGAITLANG DHAR — Appellant Vs. PANNA PRAGATI INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai, JJ.…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 392 and 397 – Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti Aur Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981 – Sections 11 and 13 – Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt – If the charge of committing the offence is alleged against all the accused and only one among the ‘offenders’ had used the firearm or deadly weapon, only such of the ‘offender’ who has used the firearm or deadly weapon alone would be liable to be charged under Section 397 IPC
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH RAM RATAN — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI, A.S. Bopanna and Hima Kohli, JJ. )…
HELD Bar Council of India may consider empanelling experienced and seasoned advocates and/or retired judicial officers to act as Inquiry Officers where an inquiry would be necessitated. On such inquiry being concluded the report of the Inquiry Officers could be received by the Bar Council of India and may issue suitable directions to the State Bar Council to enlist a panel of Inquiry Officers for the purpose of conducting the inquiry on behalf of the Bar Council of India in the respective States itself and on conclusion of the said inquiry to transmit the inquiry report to the Bar Council of India for enabling it to take it further action in the matter.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH K. ANJINAPPA — Appellant Vs. K.C. KRISHNA REDDY AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Disciplinary proceeding – Procedure for imposing major penalties – Memorandum of charges -Allegations against the appellant are serious in nature and ought not to be scuttled on purely technical ground. But the Tribunal in the judgment which was set aside by the High Court had reserved liberty to issue a fresh memorandum of charges under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 as per Rules laid down in the matter, if so advised. Thus, the department’s power to pursue the matter has been reserved and not foreclosed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUNNY ABRAHAM — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose, JJ. ) Civil…
Dowry Death – There is sufficient evidence brought on record to inculpate husband of deceased – As for mother-in-law from the evidence on record only certain omnibus allegations have been made against her with respect to dowry demands – Respondent-State has not been able to indicate any specific allegations, nor point to any specific evidence or testimony against her – Conviction of husband of deceased maintained – Conviction of mother-in-law set aside.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH PARVATI DEVI — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR NOW STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI, Surya…