Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 – Section 42 – Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954 – Sections 13 and 13(A)(2) – Possession – Transfer of rights -Land allotted to Scheduled Caste – Declaration – Appellant-original defendant being a Scheduled Caste belonging to State of Punjab and being an ordinarily and permanent resident of the State of Punjab cannot claim the benefit of a Scheduled Caste in the State of Rajasthan for the purpose of purchase of the land belonging to a Scheduled Caste person of State of Rajasthan, which was given to original allottee as Scheduled Caste landless person,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHADAR RAM (D) THR. LRS — Appellant Vs. JASSA RAM AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. )…
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010 – Regulation 44 – Employee delinquent has no absolute right to avail the services by ex employee of the Bank as his DR in the departmental proceedings – it is observed that there is no absolute right in favour of the delinquent officer’s to be represented in the departmental proceedings through the agent of his choice and the same can be restricted by the employer. – High Court has committed an error in permitting respondent delinquent officer to be represented in the departmental enquiry through exemployee of the Bank.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE RAJASTHAN MARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK (RMGB) AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. RAMESH CHANDRA MEENA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and…
Termination of mandate – Appointment of fresh arbitrator – Earlier Arbitral Tribunal-Stationery Purchase Committee comprising of Additional Secretary, Department of Revenue as President and (i) Deputy Secretary, Department of Revenue, (ii) Deputy Secretary, General Administration Department, (iii) Deputy Secretary, Department of Finance, (iv) Deputy Secretary/Under Secretary, General Administration Department and (v) Senior Deputy Controller of Head Office, Printing as Members, has lost its mandate by operation of law in view of Section 12(5) read with Seventh Schedule and a fresh arbitrator has to be appointed under the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1996
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ELLORA PAPER MILLS LIMITED — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. )…
Companies Act, 1956 – Section 531 – Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 – Section 45-MB – Suit for Interest on delayed payment on Bonds -the plaintiffs, like the Shakespearean character of Shylock, have raised the demand “I’ll have my bond. Speak not against my bond.” – Holder of the Bond has received their ‘pound of flesh’, but they seem to want more – Additional sum is not merited as SIBCO has already received their just entitlement and burdening the defendant with any further amount towards interest would be akin to Shylockian extraction of blood from the defendant.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. M/S. SIBCO INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh…
Assured Career Progression (ACP) Benefits – An employee who had been offered regular vacancy based promotion before grant of ACP benefit and the regular promotion was refused, not eligible for ACP If a regular promotion is offered but is refused by the employee before becoming entitled to a financial upgradation, she/he shall not be entitled to financial upgradation only because she has suffered stagnation – This is because, it is not a case of lack of promotional opportunities but an employee opting to forfeit offered promotion, for her own personal reasons –
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. MANJU ARORA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.…
Arbitral proceedings – Resumption – It is the discretion vested with the Court for remitting the matter to Arbitral Tribunal to give an opportunity to resume the proceedings or not – Words “where it is appropriate” itself indicate that it is the discretion to be exercised by the Court, to remit the matter when requested by a party. Merely because an application is filed under Section 34(4) of the Act by a party, it is not always obligatory on the part of the Court to remit the matter to Arbitral Tribunal
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH I-PAY CLEARING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. ICICI BANK LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. )…
It is settled principle of interpretation that where the same Statute, uses different terms and expressions, then it is clear that Legislature is referring to distinct and different things. the assessments completed against the assessee with respect to assessment years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 stand set aside. The assessing officer to pass revised orders after computing the liability in accordance with the directions as indicated
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KERALA STATE BEVERAGES MANUFACTURING & MARKETING CORPORATION LIMITED — Appellant Vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1) — Respondent ( Before :…
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Quashing of fresh assessment – Appeal against – in the present case the fresh assessments have gone against the respective dealers. Therefore, as such the respective dealers were required to prefer the appeals before the First Appellate Authority against the fresh assessment orders – High Court quashing and setting aside the fresh assessment orders in the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are unsustainable.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. S. PITCHI REDDY — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. )…
Service Law – Dismissal – When in the departmental enquiry, it has been specifically found that due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver, the accident took place in which four persons died, when the punishment of dismissal is imposed it cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate punishment – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION — Appellant Vs. DILIP UTTAM JAYABHAY — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Civil…
With a view to find out a permanent solution for the air pollution menace occurring every year in Delhi and the National Capital Region, we direct the said Commission to invite suggestions from the general public as well as the experts in the field. Some experts have already approached this Court as Intervenors. The suggestions received shall have to be considered by an expert group, to be constituted by the Commission for the said purpose, before finalization of the policy to curb air pollution.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MOHD. NAZIM AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai, JJ.…