Labour Court Award – Jurisdiction – Transfer of proceedings from Allahabad High Court to Uttaranchal High Court -Judicial discipline/propriety demand to respect the order passed by the Coordinate Bench and more particularly the judicial order passed by the Coordinate Bench of the High Court, in the present case the Allahabad High Court which as such was not under challenge before it – No error was committed by the High Court of Allahabad permitting the appellants to withdraw the writ petition pending before it with the liberty to file a fresh writ petition before the court having jurisdiction.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UTTAR PRADESH JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LIMITED AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. BALBIR SINGH — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Aniruddha Bose, JJ.…
A and C Act, 1996 – Ss 75 81, 34 and 34(2)(b) – Setting aside of arbitral award – Disturbing tendency of courts – Disturbing tendency of courts setting aside arbitral awards, after dissecting and reassessing factual aspects of the cases to come to a conclusion that the award needs intervention and thereafter, dubbing the award to be vitiated by either perversity or patent illegality, apart from the other grounds available for annulment of the award – Every error of law committed by the Arbitral Tribunal would not fall within the expression ‘patent illegality’
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DELHI AIRPORT METRO EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and S.…
Whether proportionate disallowance of interest paid by the banks is called for under Section 14A of Income Tax Act- Proportionate disallowance of interest is not warranted, under Section 14A of Income Tax Act for investments made in tax free bonds/ securities which yield tax free dividend and interest to Assessee Banks in those situations where, interest free own funds available with the Assessee, exceeded their investments.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED — Appellant Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. )…
Acquisition proceedings – Enhancement of compensation – Non adequate Compensation – Appellant is entitled for compensation for 2 hectares of land in reference to which compensation has not been awarded under the impugned judgment at the rate of Rs. 1,00,000/ per hectare along with statutory entitlement to the claimant/appellant as referred to by the High Court in para (viii) till realization under the impugned judgment.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHUPENDRA RAMDHAN PAWAR — Appellant Vs. VIDARBHA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, NAGPUR AND OTHERS ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S.…
Second Appeal – Power of High Court to determine issues of fact – If the appellants’ arguments were to prevail, the findings of fact based upon an entirely erroneous appreciation of facts and by overlooking material evidence would necessarily have to remain and bind the parties, thereby causing injustice – It is precisely for such reasons that the High Courts are empowered to exercise limited factual review under Section 103 CPC. However, that such power could be exercised cannot be doubted.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH K.N. NAGARAJAPPA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. H. NARASIMHA REDDY — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ. )…
Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 – Section 25, 25(a) and 25(f) – General Clauses Act, 1897 – Section 21 – Principal Special Director in Enforcement Directorate – Extension of tenure – Section 25(f) of the CVC Act has to be read as the tenure of office of the Director of Enforcement is for a minimum period of two years – There is no proscription on the Government to appoint a Director of Enforcement beyond a period of two years
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH COMMON CAUSE (A REGISTERED SOCIETY) — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai,…
Civil Law – Suit for Permanent injunction – Suit simpliciter for permanent injunction without claiming declaration of title, as filed by the plaintiff, was not maintainable
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KAYALULLA PARAMBATH MOIDU HAJI — Appellant Vs. NAMBOODIYIL VINODAN — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Medical negligence – Where the treatment is not successful or the patient dies during surgery, it cannot be automatically assumed that the medical professional was negligent – Indicate negligence there should be material available on record or else appropriate medical evidence should be tendered – Negligence alleged should be so glaring, in which event the principle of res ipsa loquitur could be made applicable and not based on perception
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DR. HARISH KUMAR KHURANA — Appellant Vs. JOGINDER SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. ) Civil…
IMP : Suit for grant of perpetual injunction against the defendants restraining them or anybody claiming through them from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property – High Court was right in holding that the suit simpliciter for permanent injunction without claiming declaration of title, as filed by the plaintiff, was not maintainable .
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH T.V. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY — Appellant Vs. M. MALLAPPA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai, JJ. ) Civil…
Title Suit – Dismissal of – Plaintiffs were not owners of the property on the date they had filed the present suit for title and possession on 5th August,1967 – Trial court dismissing the suit is correct.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAKESH BHUSHAN PRASAD ALIAS RAMESH PRASAD AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. RADHA DEVI (D) BY LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M.…