IMP: On a fair reading of Section 23A of the Hindu Marriage Act, the respondent in any proceedings for divorce or judicial separation or restitution of conjugal rights, may not only oppose the relief sought on the ground of adultery, cruelty or desertion, but also make a counterclaim for any relief under Hindu Marriage Act, i.e, on the ground of petitioner’s adultery, cruelty or desertion and if the petitioner’s adultery, cruelty or desertion is proved, the court may give to the respondent any relief under Hindu Marriage Act
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NITABEN DINESH PATEL — Appellant Vs. DINESH DAHYABHAI PATEL — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal Nos.…
Income Tax Act, 1961 – Ss 143(3), 263 and 263(2) – Assessment – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue -Receipt of the order passed under Section 263 by the assessee has no relevance for the purpose of counting the period of limitation – The order was made/passed by the learned Commissioner on 26.03.2012 and it was dispatched on 28.03.2012. The relevant last date for the purpose of passing the order under Section 263 considering the fact that the assessment was for the financial year 200809 would be 31.03.2012 and the order might have been received as per the case of the assessee. Wrongly held passed by the learned Commissioner was barred by period of limitation
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI — Appellant Vs. MOHAMMED MEERAN SHAHUL HAMEED — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna, JJ.…
Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 – Section 91(3) – Rajasthan Services Rules, 1951 – Rule 86 – Termination – HELD Single Judge erred in entertaining the petition in the year 2012 challenging the order of termination passed in the year 1996, on the ground of delay and laches and more particularly when even otherwise if the termination order would not have been passed the deceased employee would have retired on attaining the age of superannuation in the year 1999.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SURJI DEVI — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. ) Civil…
Part-time temporary employees in a Government run institution cannot claim parity in salary with regular employees of the Government on the principle of equal pay for equal work – Regularization can be only as per the regularization policy declared by the State/Government and nobody can claim the regularization as a matter of right dehors the regularization policy
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. ILMO DEVI AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. )…
Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 – Sections 20(3) and 20(5) – Jurisdiction of Lok Adalat – Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction at all to decide the matter on meris once it is found that compromise or settlement could not be arrived at between the parties – Impugned order passed by the Lok Adalat dismissing the writ petition on merits is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ESTATE OFFICER — Appellant Vs. COLONEL H.V. MANKOTIA (RETIRED) — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – Sections 14, 16, 18(2)(e) and 19(25) – Whether the National Green Tribunal (NGT) has the power to exercise Suo Motu jurisdiction in discharge of its functions under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – Held, NGT is vested with suo motu power in discharge of its functions under the NGT Act:
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI — Appellant Vs. ANKITA SINHA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar, Hrishikesh Roy and C.T. Ravikumar,…
Indian Succession Act S 63 & Indian Evidence Act S 68 have been duly complied with in proving Exhibit P4 (Will). HELD due execution of Exhibit P4 is accepted as against Exhibit D1. Exhibit P4 also cannot be questioned by the Respondent No. 1 who is none other than the erstwhile brother-in-law of the Appellant. Respondent No. 1 & 2 merely rely upon Exhibit D1 which is rightly found to be not genuine by both the Courts. We feel that the Appellate Court has not considered the relevant materials and substituted its own views when not warranted either on facts or law.HELD due execution of Exhibit P4 is accepted as against Exhibit D1. Exhibit P4 also cannot be questioned by the Respondent No. 1 who is none other than the erstwhile brother-in-law of the Appellant. Respondent No. 1 & 2 merely rely upon Exhibit D1 which is rightly found to be not genuine by both the Courts. We feel that the Appellate Court has not considered the relevant materials and substituted its own views when not warranted either on facts or law.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH V. PRABHAKARA — Appellant Vs. BASAVARAJ K. (DEAD) BY LR. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh, JJ.…
Service Law – HELD Firstly, the first appellant found that the respondent is not suitable for re-appointment, which was approved by the other authorities. Therefore, the employer has taken a conscious decision in the interest of the society. Secondly, it is not a case of extension in which case maybe the confirmation by “ACC” would have been warranted. We may also note that all the appellants, including the Hon’ble Minister, have approved the subsequent decision to go for a fresh recruitment by taking note of the larger public interest.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. N MURUGESAN ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh, JJ. )…
Government houses/flats are meant for serving Government employees. Post retirement, the government employees including Kashmiri Migrants are granted pensionary benefits including monthly pension – Classification made in favour of Government employees who were Kashmiri Migrants stands on the same footing as that of other Government employees or public figures – There cannot be any justification on the basis of social or economic criteria to allow the Kashmiri Migrants to stay in Government accommodation for indefinite long period.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. OMKAR NATH DHAR (D) THROUGH L.RS. — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and A.S. Bopanna,…
High Court in its revisional jurisdiction after taking into consideration the material on record, arrived to the conclusion that the delay of 175 days was bona fide and has been satisfactorily explained and allowed the application seeking condonation of delay of 175 days. In sequel thereof, the ex-parte decree was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the Rent Controller to hear the parties on merits.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MRS. AMBIKA MURALI — Appellant Vs. TMT. VALLIAMMAL AND ANOTHER AND ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ.…