Latest Post

Constitution of India, 1950 — Art. 16 and 226 — Public Employment — Direct Recruitment — Eligibility Criteria — Workshop Experience — Pendency of workshop renewal applications — Effect on candidates — Where a recruitment notification mandates a minimum of one year of experience in a Government-approved workshop, candidates cannot be prejudiced or disqualified merely because the workshop’s application for renewal of approval was pending with the State authorities during the period they gained experience — Depriving an otherwise eligible candidate of employment due to an administrative “period of eclipse” or delay on the part of state machinery is arbitrary and discriminatory–Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, 1985 INSC 137, relied on; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Atul Kumar Dwivedi, 2022 INSC 24, Distinguished. Right to Information Act, 2005 — S. 24(4) — Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment Act, 1947 — S. 2(1), S. 3 — “Intelligence and Security Organisation” — Scope and Applicability of Exemption — Jurisdiction of Special Police Establishment (SPE) — The expression “intelligence and security organisations” under Section 24 of the RTI Act implies that the concerned entity must be statutory or institutionally empowered to handle matters of intelligence and national/state security — The Special Police Establishment (SPE) of Madhya Pradesh, established under Section 2(1) of the Act of 1947, is clothed with a limited jurisdiction restricted strictly to investigating offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and select economic/fraud offenses under Sections 409, 420, and Chapter XVIII of the Indian Penal Code — Because neither the Lokayukt nor the SPE handles matters connected to general ‘intelligence’ and ‘security’, the SPE cannot be deemed an “intelligence and security organisation” under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act — Principle of institutional parity cannot be invoked to grant blanket exemptions to a anti-corruption investigation agency. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 11, Explanation IV — Constructive Res Judicata — Application of the principle depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, considering the ambit of earlier proceedings and the nexus of the matter to the controversy — It is founded on public policy to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and avoid parties being vexed twice over for the same litigation — Parties are expected to exercise reasonable diligence and bring forward every point that properly belonged to the subject of litigation and which they might and ought to have brought forward — Negligence, inadvertence, or accident in omitting a part of the case does not exempt from its application. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 165 and 166 — Liability for injuries sustained due to falling tree branch — Injuries caused by falling tree branch while vehicle was stationary under the tree during rain — Held, not an accident “arising out of the use of a motor vehicle” as the motor vehicle did not play an active role. [ Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) — Sections 24, 33(5), 36, 39 — Child-sensitive judicial processes — Mandatory safeguards for child victims — Courts must ensure child-friendly procedures, minimum intrusion, and psychological safety, avoiding re-traumatisation and secondary victimisation in all proceedings concerning children, especially those involving allegations of sexual abuse.

Constitution of India, 1950 — Art. 16 and 226 — Public Employment — Direct Recruitment — Eligibility Criteria — Workshop Experience — Pendency of workshop renewal applications — Effect on candidates — Where a recruitment notification mandates a minimum of one year of experience in a Government-approved workshop, candidates cannot be prejudiced or disqualified merely because the workshop’s application for renewal of approval was pending with the State authorities during the period they gained experience — Depriving an otherwise eligible candidate of employment due to an administrative “period of eclipse” or delay on the part of state machinery is arbitrary and discriminatory–Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, 1985 INSC 137, relied on; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Atul Kumar Dwivedi, 2022 INSC 24, Distinguished.

Right to Information Act, 2005 — S. 24(4) — Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment Act, 1947 — S. 2(1), S. 3 — “Intelligence and Security Organisation” — Scope and Applicability of Exemption — Jurisdiction of Special Police Establishment (SPE) — The expression “intelligence and security organisations” under Section 24 of the RTI Act implies that the concerned entity must be statutory or institutionally empowered to handle matters of intelligence and national/state security — The Special Police Establishment (SPE) of Madhya Pradesh, established under Section 2(1) of the Act of 1947, is clothed with a limited jurisdiction restricted strictly to investigating offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and select economic/fraud offenses under Sections 409, 420, and Chapter XVIII of the Indian Penal Code — Because neither the Lokayukt nor the SPE handles matters connected to general ‘intelligence’ and ‘security’, the SPE cannot be deemed an “intelligence and security organisation” under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act — Principle of institutional parity cannot be invoked to grant blanket exemptions to a anti-corruption investigation agency.

It is a fundamental principle of law that a party who is in enjoyment of an interim order, is bound to lose the benefit of such interim order when the ultimate outcome of the case goes against him. HELD in view of the efflux of time and taking into account the fact that few employees are now no more, we direct the Management not to effect any recovery, if payment has already been made to any of the respondents or their families.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR FERTILIZER CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. RAJESH CHANDRA SHRIVASTAVA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta…

A consumer invoking the jurisdiction of the Commission can seek such reliefs as he/she considers appropriate. A consumer can pray for refund of the money with interest and compensation. The consumer could also ask for possession of the apartment with compensation. The consumer can also make a prayer for both in the alternative.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH EXPERION DEVELOPERS PVRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. SUSHMA ASHOK SHIROOR — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and Pamidighantam Sri…

Right against deprivation of property unless in accordance with procedure established by law, continues to be a constitutional right under Article 300-A – Forcible dispossession of a person of their private property without following due process of law, was violative of both their human right, and constitutional right under Article 300-A.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUKH DUTT RATRA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Pamidighantam…

HELD the deceased was done to death by strangulation and thereafter an attempt was made to camouflage the death as one which arose out of burn injuries. The evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3 is quite consistent, cogent and firmly establishes not only the demands for dowry but dowry related harassments that the deceased was subjected to. Appeal dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SAREPALLI SREENIVAS AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and Pamidighantam…

Service Matters

HELD the recommendations made by the Corporation in introducing the ORSP Rules, 2008 for the employees of the Corporation in the absence of being approved by the Administrative Department, i.e., MSME, in the instant case, and by the Finance Department were not available for implementation and the finding which has been recorded by the learned Single Judge and affirmed in appeal, in our considered view, is not sustainable and deserves to be set aside.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ODISHA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION — Appellant Vs. ODISHA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNION AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Sanjiv…

HELD that whether corporate death of an entity upon amalgamation per se invalidates an assessment order ordinarily cannot be determined on a bare application of Section 481 of the Companies Act, 1956 (and its equivalent in the 2013 Act), but would depend on the terms of the amalgamation and the facts of each case – “an assessment can always be made and is supposed to be made on the Transferee Company taking into account the income of both the Transferor and Transferee Company. “.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) – 2 — Appellant Vs. M/S. MAHAGUN REALTORS (P) LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit…

Recruitment in Army – Illegal gratification – Malpractices of clearing some candidates as medically fit, who were not otherwise fit, took place — AFT would be justified in interfering with the finding of the courtmartial where its finding is legally not sustainable due to any reason whatsoever – Extrajudicial confession is a weak piece of evidence –

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. MAJOR R. METRI NO. 08585N — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai,…

Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 – Sections 3 and 4 – Theft – Probation – Sections 360 and 361 of the Cr.P.C also empower the courts to release the offenders on probation of good conduct HELD having regard to sentence imposed by the courts below on the appellants for the offence under Section 379 read with Section 34 of IPC, and having regard to the fact there are no criminal antecedents against the appellants, the court is inclined to give them the benefit of releasing them on probation of good conduct –

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SOM DUTT AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ.…

You missed