Labour Court has no jurisdiction and cannot adjudicate dispute of entitlement or the basis of the claim of workmen – It can only interpret the award or settlement on which the claim is based
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S BOMBAY CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES — Appellant Vs. DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. )…
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 – Sections 5(20), 5(21) and 9 – Operational creditor – A debt which arises out of advance payment made to a corporate debtor for supply of goods or services would be considered as an operational debt
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M/S CONSOLIDATED CONSTRUCTION CONSORTIUM LIMITED — Appellant Vs. M/S HITRO ENERGY SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Surya…
(IPC) 307 – PWs-1 & 2 have not contradicted between themselves being the eye-witnesses. Merely because they are related witnesses, in the absence of any material to hold that they are interested, their testimonies cannot be rejected. The High Court has rightly set aside the conviction rendered by the trial court for the charge under Section 307 IPC. PWs-1 & 2 have not spoken about the presence of the injured witness
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJESH YADAV AND ANOTHER ETC. — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh, JJ. )…
HELD the question as to whether the workmen engaged by the contractors would be entitled to pay at par with other workmen of the employer and demand to that effect was raised with the appellants only. Thus, the settlement of 19th September, 2016, in which the employers were the contractors cannot bind the subject-dispute, where the appellants have been found to be the employer on the basis of materials considered by the High Court. Their engagement by the contractors cannot be the sole basis for determining their status as workmen of contractors.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED — Appellant Vs. THE PRESIDENT, OIL FIELD EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L.…
(CrPC) – Section 482 – (IPC) – Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B – Quashing of criminal proceedings – Misappropriation of amount – Main allegations are against the co-accused and others – There are no allegations that the appellants are related to the co-accused and others – It cannot be said that there is any prima facie case made out against the appellants for the offences – Quashed
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SMT. REKHA JAIN AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V.…
HELD – The value of the timber loaded in the truck SCDRC to examine this issue afresh without being influenced by its earlier order, including the order passed by the NCDRC. The appellants and the respondent would be permitted to file additional documents regarding delivery to the consignee and the valuation of the consignment, including the documents filed by the Bank before us. The parties would be asked to lead evidence through affidavits.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH INDUSIND BANK LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SIMARJIT SINGH — Respondent ( Before : Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ. ) Civil…
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 12 – Electricity Act, 2003 – Sections 61, 62, 84 and 86(1)(b) – Andhra Pradesh Electricity Reform Act, 1998 – Section 21 – Withdrawal of petition for grant of approval of Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) – – Appellants (DISCOMS) could not be permitted to change the decision at their whims and fancies and, particularly, when it is adversarial to the public interest and public good – APTEL has rightly held that the appellants-(DISCOMS) could not have been permitted to withdraw petition.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION POWER COMPANY LIMITED OF ANDHRA PRADESH (APSPDCL) AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M/S HINDUJA NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER —…
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 11 – Appointment of member of the Bar as the sole Arbitrator – Appeal against – – While dealing with petition under Section 11, the Court by default would refer the matter when contentions relating to non-arbitrability are plainly arguable – In such case, the issue of non-arbitrability is left open to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal – No case for interference is made out – Appeal dismissed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MOHAMMED MASROOR SHAIKH — Appellant Vs. BHARAT BHUSHAN GUPTA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and Abhay S. Oka, JJ. )…
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 142 – Bearing in mind these exceptional facts and circumstances, by means of the saving clause in the Repealing Act, 2018, the Manipur Legislature could not have infused life into a legislation, which was recognised by the Legislature itself as unconstitutional and thereby, a nullity, prompting its repeal.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH THE STATE OF MANIPUR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SURJAKUMAR OKRAM AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302/24 – Murder – Dying declaration – If the Court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and voluntary it can base its conviction on it, without corroboration.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF U.P. — Appellant Vs. VEERPAL AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…