National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – Environmental and pollution – Adherence to the environmental and pollution norms cannot be compromised for factual misunderstandings or due to cryptic determination
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH TEJINDER KUMAR JOLLY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh…
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 18, 19, 24, 25, 29A, 34 and 37 – Appointment of arbitrator for adjudication of disputes – A pragmatic and common-sense approach would invariably check any discord between the desire for expeditious disposal and adequacy of opportunity to establish one’s case – In the context of the present case, This Court agree with the High Court that there was unnecessary haste and hurry by the arbitrator, especially when the respondent had filed the affidavit by way of evidence
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. NARINDER SINGH AND SONS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER – II, NORTHERN RAILWAY, FEROZEPUR DIVISION, FEROZEPUR — Respondent…
Once it is proved that in spite of the death of the breadwinner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no need to make appointment on compassionate ground at the cost of the interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED — Appellant Vs. GOURI DEVI — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
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.…
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…
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 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,…






