Latest Post

Passports Act, 1967 — Sections 5, 6(2)(f), 7, 8, 9, 10, and 22 — Refusal to issue or re-issue a passport due to pending criminal proceedings — Exemption under Section 22 via Notification GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993 — Section 6(2)(f) bars issuance if criminal proceedings are pending, but this is subject to “other provisions of this Act,” including Section 22 — GSR 570(E) exempts persons facing criminal proceedings if they obtain permission from the concerned criminal court — This exemption is structured, tying validity and use to the court’s order; it permits issuing a passport where the criminal court allows renewal and retains judicial supervision over foreign travel. (Paras 7.2, 7.6, 7.8, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 25) 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)

Passports Act, 1967 — Sections 5, 6(2)(f), 7, 8, 9, 10, and 22 — Refusal to issue or re-issue a passport due to pending criminal proceedings — Exemption under Section 22 via Notification GSR 570(E) dated 25.08.1993 — Section 6(2)(f) bars issuance if criminal proceedings are pending, but this is subject to “other provisions of this Act,” including Section 22 — GSR 570(E) exempts persons facing criminal proceedings if they obtain permission from the concerned criminal court — This exemption is structured, tying validity and use to the court’s order; it permits issuing a passport where the criminal court allows renewal and retains judicial supervision over foreign travel. (Paras 7.2, 7.6, 7.8, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 25)

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

Service Matters

Enhancement of Age of superannuation – HELD enhancement of the age of superannuation is a ‘public function’ channelised by the provisions of the statute and the service regulations, the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be used to challenge the action of NOIDA – Though NOIDA sought the approval of the State government for the enhancement with ‘immediate effect’ , it never intended or portrayed to have intended to give retrospective effect to the prospectively applicable Government order

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. B. D. SINGHAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud…

Exparte decree against minor – Appointment of guardian – High Court found that the exparte decree was a nullity, as it was passed against a minor without the minor being represented by a guardian duly appointed in terms of the procedure contemplated under Order 32, Rule 3 of the Code – Therefore, the High Court, exercising its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, set aside the exparte decree itself . ORDER UPHELD

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH K.P. NATARAJAN AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. MUTHALAMMAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. ) Special Leave…

Murder – Cancellation of Bail – High court grants bail in second bail application without discussion or analysis of circumstances – Observations made by the High Court “considering the contentions put forth by counsel for the petitioner, I deem it proper to allow the second bail application” does not constitute the kind of reasoning which is expected of a judicial order

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KUMER SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M. R. Shah, JJ.…

As held, it is declared that Part IXB of the Constitution of India is operative only insofar as it concerns multi State cooperative societies both within the various States and in the Union territories of India – Part IX B of the Constitution consists of Articles 243ZH to 243ZT – Article 243ZH is the definition Article which defines co-operative societies in sub-clause (c) as meaning society registered or deemed to be registered under a State law, as opposed to a multi-State cooperative society defined in sub-clause (d), which is a society with objects not confined to one State and registered under a law for the time being in force relating to such cooperatives

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH UNION OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. RAJENDRA N. SHAH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : R. F. Nariman, B.R. Gavai and K.M. Joseph,…

CrPC – S 482 – IPC – Ss 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477A read with 120B – In exceptional cases with caution and circumspection, giving brief reasons, High Court has power passed to pass an protection interim order. there may be allegations of abuse of process of law, converting a civil dispute into a criminal dispute, with a view to pressurize the accused. High Court has given elaborate reasons as to how the allegations of bank fraud were developed during the proceedings concerning allegations of election fraud.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH A P MAHESH COOPERATIVE URBAN BANK SHAREHOLDERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION — Appellant Vs. RAMESH KUMAR BUNG AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee…

India cannot have two parallel legal systems, “one for the rich and the resourceful and those who wield political power and influence and the other for the small men without resources and capabilities to obtain justice or fight injustice.” The existence of a dual legal system will only chip away the legitimacy of the law. – Order of High Court shall stand set aside – Bail cancelled

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SOMESH CHAURASIA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF M.P. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. )…

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(d) – Subsequent Purchaser of Flat – Relief of interest on refund HELD The equities, in the opinion of this court, can properly be moulded by directing refund of the principal amounts, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date the builder acquired knowledge of the transfer, or acknowledged it.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M/S LAUREATE BUILDWELL PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. CHARANJEET SINGH — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, Hemant Gupta and S. Ravindra Bhat,…

AGR dues – In prior order while disposing of the Case, this Court reiterated that no telecom operator shall raise any dispute in respect of the demand raised by the Department of Telecommunications pertaining to AGR dues – There is no scope for any recalculation/re-computation of AGR dues – Applications dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH UNION OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. ASSOCIATION OF UNIFIED TELECOM SERVICE PROVIDERS OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao,…

You missed