Service Law – Charge of causing loss – Recovery – Whether the High Court ought to have maintained the punishment order for recovery of Rs.2,46,922.56, which was also held to be proved by the Enquiry Officer – Held, It is required to be noted that in so far as the charge of causing loss to the extent of Rs.2,46,922.56, it was held to be proved by the Enquiry Officer
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UTTAR PRADESH FOREST CORPORATION LUCKNOW AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. VIJAY KUMAR YADAV AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V.…
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 5A and 17(4) – Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 106 – Special powers in cases of urgency – HELD On an appreciation of the evidence made available by all the parties it is open to the court to conclude that no occasion arose for resorting to the power under Section 17 (4) which indeed must be read as an exception to the general rule that the acquisition of property is made after affording an opportunity the person adversely affected to demonstrate that the acquisition was unjustified.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HAMID ALI KHAN (D) THROUGH LRS. AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and…
Loan waiver to small and marginal farmers – It is settled law that a scheme cannot be held to be constitutionally suspect merely because it was based on an electoral promise – A scheme can be held suspect only within the contours of the Constitution, irrespective of the intent with which the scheme was introduced – Appeal is allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. NATIONAL SOUTH INDIAN RIVER INTERLINKING AGRICULTURIST ASSOCIATION — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y.…
Rights of Persons with Disability Act, 2016 – Sections 2(r) and 17(i) – Persons with Disabilities – Examinations – Relaxation – National Testing Agency (NTA), as an examining body, was bound to scrupulously enforce the Guidelines for Written Examinations which provides for specific relaxations – NTA must remember that all authority under the law is subject to responsibility, and above all, to a sense of accountability.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AVNI PRAKASH — Appellant Vs. NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY (NTA) AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and A.S. Bopanna, JJ.…
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 60(5)(c) – Residuary jurisdiction of the NCLT cannot be invoked if the termination of a contract is based on grounds unrelated to the insolvency of the Corporate Debtor – NCLT does not have any residuary jurisdiction to entertain the present contractual dispute which has arisen dehors the insolvency of the Corporate Debtor.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED — Appellant Vs. VISHAL GHISULAL JAIN, RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL, SK WHEELS PRIVATE LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y.…
An employee could be said to be suffering from stagnation as per the office order only if he possessed the requisite qualification for the next higher post and was unable to get the higher post on account of non availability of such post – Claim of the respondents based on the office order, for getting the pay scale of the next higher post – without assuming the responsibilities of the said promotional posts, was thoroughly misconceived. What they were entitled to, as per the scheme to alleviate the stagnation as contained in the office,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. BAL KRISHAN SHARMA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and…
Relaxation cannot be prayed as a matter of right – If a conscious decision is taken not to grant the relaxation, merely because Rule permits relaxation, no writ of mandamus can be issued directing the competent authority to grant relaxation in qualifying service – High Court has committed a grave error in issuing the writ of mandamus commanding the competent authority to grant relaxation in the qualifying service – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. VIKASH KUMAR SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ…
Jurisdiction of civil courts – Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 is a self-contained Code – Various provisions of the Act make it clear that if any orders are passed by the competent authority, there is provision for appeal, revision before the designated appellate and revisional authorities – In view of such remedies available for aggrieved parties, the jurisdiction of the civil courts to try suit relating to land which is subject-matter of ceiling proceedings, stands excluded by implication
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF M.P. — Appellant Vs. GHISILAL — Respondent ( Before : R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 2153…
HELD ” The evidence adduced is not separable and the common findings rendered shall be made applicable to all the accused. There are too many loopholes which cannot be filled up, nor is there any evidence to come to a different conclusion including that of exceeding the right of private defence. What emerged as a civil dispute between two groups of villagers turned into a criminal case, thus inclined to hold that the Accused-Appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt as we also give our imprimatur to the plea of private defence as possible and plausible with due discharge of onus.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ARVIND KUMAR @ NEMICHAND AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh, JJ.…
A and C Act, 1996 – Ss 33, 34 and 37 – Only in a case of arithmetical and/or clerical error, the award can be modified and such errors only can be corrected -Order passed by the learned arbitrator in the application under Section 33 of the 1996 Act is beyond the scope and ambit of Section 33 of the 1996 Act – Therefore, both, the City Civil Court as well as the High Court have committed a grave error in dismissing the arbitration suit/appeal under Sections 34 and 37
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GYAN PRAKASH ARYA — Appellant Vs. M/S TITAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…