Latest Post

Cochin University of Science and Technology Act, 1986 — Section 31(10) and 31(11) — Selection and Appointment — Validity of Rank List and Communal Rotation — Harmonious Construction — Section 31(10) stipulates that the Rank List remains valid for two years, and vacancies arising during this period “shall be filled up from the list so published” — Section 31(11) mandates that “Communal rotation shall be followed category-wise” — These sub-sections operate in distinct spheres but are not mutually exclusive; the Rank List’s validity period (Sub-sec 10) co-exists with the mandatory application of communal rotation (Sub-sec 11) for every appointment made therefrom — Interpreting Sub-section (11) as becoming operative only after the Rank List expires would render the reservation/rotation requirement otiose during the list’s validity, defeating legislative intent and violating the doctrine of harmonious construction. (Paras 5, 5.2, 5.4, 5.5, 5.5.1, 5.5.2 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) —Section 302 read with Sections 149 and 148 — Murder —Conviction affirmed by High Court — Appeal to Supreme Court — Sufficiency of evidence — Role of interested/related witnesses — Deposition of PW-4 (mother of deceased and alleged eyewitness) scrutinized closely — Material contradictions found in PW-4’s evidence regarding the manner of assault and who informed her — Failure of prosecution to examine key witness (deceased’s granddaughter, who initially informed PW-4) — Independent witnesses (PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-9) turned hostile — Recovery of weapons based on accused’s memorandum/statement rendered unreliable when supporting witnesses hostile. (Paras 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15) Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 — Section 45A — Determination of contributions in certain cases — Preconditions for invoking Section 45A — Section 45A is a special provision for best-judgment assessment applicable only when an employer fails to submit, furnish, or maintain returns, particulars, registers, or records as required by Section 44, OR obstructs an Inspector or official in discharging duties under Section 45 — It is not an alternative mode of assessment available at the option of the Corporation — When records (ledgers, cash books, vouchers, etc.) are produced and the employer cooperates by attending multiple personal hearings, the mere allegation of inadequacy or deficiency of supporting documents does not satisfy the statutory threshold of “non-production” or “obstruction” to invoke Section 45A — Mere inadequacy of records does not confer jurisdiction under Section 45A. (Paras 14.6, 14.7, 24, 25, 27, 30) Tender and Contract — Eligibility Criteria — Interpretation of “prime contractor” and “in the same name and style” — Requirement of work experience — Where an NIT’s pre-qualification document requires “each prime contractor in the same name and style (tenderer)” to have completed previous work, and the term “prime contractor” is undefined, its meaning must be derived from common parlance as the tenderer primarily responsible for the contract offer; however, the requirement must be construed from the standpoint of a prudent businessman, considering the credentials and capacity to execute the work, not merely the name. (Paras 17, 20, 21.3) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 389 — Suspension of execution of sentence pending appeal and release on bail — Scope and distinction with bail — Appellate Court must record proper reasons for suspending sentence; it should not be passed as a matter of routine — The Appellate Court must not reappreciate evidence or attempt to find lacunae in the prosecution case at this stage — Once convicted, the presumption of innocence vanishes, and the High Court should be slow in granting bail pending appeal, especially for serious offenses like murder (Section 302, IPC). (Paras 6, 6.1, 6.2)

Cochin University of Science and Technology Act, 1986 — Section 31(10) and 31(11) — Selection and Appointment — Validity of Rank List and Communal Rotation — Harmonious Construction — Section 31(10) stipulates that the Rank List remains valid for two years, and vacancies arising during this period “shall be filled up from the list so published” — Section 31(11) mandates that “Communal rotation shall be followed category-wise” — These sub-sections operate in distinct spheres but are not mutually exclusive; the Rank List’s validity period (Sub-sec 10) co-exists with the mandatory application of communal rotation (Sub-sec 11) for every appointment made therefrom — Interpreting Sub-section (11) as becoming operative only after the Rank List expires would render the reservation/rotation requirement otiose during the list’s validity, defeating legislative intent and violating the doctrine of harmonious construction. (Paras 5, 5.2, 5.4, 5.5, 5.5.1, 5.5.2

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) —Section 302 read with Sections 149 and 148 — Murder —Conviction affirmed by High Court — Appeal to Supreme Court — Sufficiency of evidence — Role of interested/related witnesses — Deposition of PW-4 (mother of deceased and alleged eyewitness) scrutinized closely — Material contradictions found in PW-4’s evidence regarding the manner of assault and who informed her — Failure of prosecution to examine key witness (deceased’s granddaughter, who initially informed PW-4) — Independent witnesses (PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-9) turned hostile — Recovery of weapons based on accused’s memorandum/statement rendered unreliable when supporting witnesses hostile. (Paras 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15)

Service Matters

Uttar Pradesh (Civil Police) Constable and Head Constable Rules, 2008 – Police Constables Recruitment – There is no bar in intimating the candidates through SMS, more particularly when large number of candidates had to appear in the subsequent process and majority of the candidates have appeared for document verification and physical fitness test pursuant to intimation by SMS.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. PANKAJ KUMAR — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and A.S. Bopanna, JJ.…

Service Matters

Summary dismissal of an earlier petition under Article 32 of the Constitution does not bar the present writ petition on grounds of res judicata as there has been no substantive decision on the merits of the issues. HELD Court must be alive to the contemporary reality of “ambush Public Interest Litigations” and interpret the principles of res judicata or constructive res judicata in a manner which does not debar access to justice – Jurisdiction under Article 32 is a fundamental right in and of itself.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NATIONAL CONFEDERATION OF OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF CENTRAL PUBLIC SECTOR ENTERPRISES AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before…

Service Matters

Claim for compassionate appointment must be decided only on the basis of relevant scheme prevalent on date of demise of the employee and subsequent scheme cannot be looked into – Respondent shall not be entitled for appointment on compassionate ground on the basis of the subsequent circular/policy dated 31.08.2016 – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. ASHISH AWASTHI — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ. )…

Rash and negligent act simplicitor and not a case of driving in an inebriated condition which is, undoubtedly despicable – HELD the conviction of the appellant under Sections 279 and 304A IPC is maintained. However, the substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone. Imposition of fine is also affirmed. Besides the fine, an amount of Rs. 3 lakhs which has been deposited by the appellant by way of compensation in the Registry of this Court be transferred to the Motor Accident Tribunal which shall be released by the Tribunal to the widow of the deceased.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SAGAR LOLIENKAR — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF GOA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ. )…

Civil Law – Injunction – No injunction could have been granted without impleading and without giving an opportunity of being heard – High Court granting injunction with respect to 1/7th share in the total plaint schedule properties which has been passed without giving an opportunity of being heard to the appellants and without impleading them as party-defendants in the suit by learned trial Court, is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside – Appeal allowed

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ACQUA BOREWELL PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. SWAYAM PRABHA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Civil…

Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 – Sections 14A and 25 – Jurisdiction of Civil Court — Expression “validity of the decision or the Order” in Section 25 of the Act, would not include a case where, despite a dispute projected, that there was no landlord-tenant relationship, the Authority decides the said issue in the course of the Order of Eviction, under Section 14A, after brushing aside the tenant’s objection relating to his position, viz., that he is not a tenant. In such a situation, the validity is tied-up with the fundamental aspect of absence of power of the Authority to decide on the question of landlord-tenant relationship.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ASSA SINGH (D) BY LRS. — Appellant Vs. SHANTI PARSHAD(D) BY LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : K.M Joseph and S. Ravindra…

Service Matters

Service Code does not stipulate any time period within which the appeal may be preferred to the Board of Directors whose decision is to be final, but it is well settled that no time does not mean any time – Challenge to the order of dismissal from service by way of appeal was after four years and five months, which is certainly highly belated and beyond justifiable time – Without satisfactory explanation justifying the delay, it is difficult to hold that the appeal was preferred within a reasonable time – Order of dismissal uphold.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE CHAIRMAN, STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M.J. JAMES — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Sanjiv Khanna,…

Fixing notional income at Rs.15,000/- per annum for non-earning members is not just and reasonable, Schedule-II is not yet amended – It appropriate to take notional income of the deceased at Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) per annum. Accordingly, when the notional income is multiplied with applicable multiplier ’15’, as prescribed in Schedule-II for the claims under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KURVAN ANSARI ALIAS KURVAN ALI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SHYAM KISHORE MURMU AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : R. Subhash Reddy and…

Service Matters

Mr. Dinkar Gupta was appointed as Director General of Punjab Police – HELD when a person takes a chance and participates, thereafter he cannot, because the result is unpalatable, turn around to contend that the process was unfair or the selection committee was not properly constituted. In case where the petitioner had appeared at an open interview, as the Appellant too had taken a calculated chance in spite of the stakes, that too without protest, and then has belatedly raised the plea of bias and prejudice only when he was not recommended.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MOHD. MUSTAFA — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, Sanjiv Khanna and B.R. Gavai, JJ.…

You missed