Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 9A – Transferring the respective workman from Dewas to Chopanki, which is at about 900 Kms. away is in violation of Section 9A read with Fourth Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act and is arbitrary, mala fide and victimization – By such transfer, their status as “workman” would be changed to that of “supervisor” – By such a change after their transfer to Chopanki and after they work as supervisor they will be deprived of the beneficial provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and, therefore, the nature of service conditions/service would be changed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CAPARO ENGINEERING INDIA LIMITED — Appellant Vs. UMMED SINGH LODHI AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. )…
Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 14 and 226 – Allotment of quarters – Ex-employees of Mills – Right to equality – No justification at all in treating 318 ex-employees different from those 134 ex-employees who were allotted 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost – As such the equals are treated unequally and therefore, when the equals are treated unequally, there is a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution and therefore, the appellants were entitled to the relief sought even in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MODIFIED VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT SCHEME OF 2002 OF AZAM JAHI MILL WORKERS ASSOCIATION — Appellant Vs. NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent (…
Military Engineering Service (Non-Industrial Class III and IV Posts) Rules, 1971 – Seniority – Determination of – In the matter of adjudging seniority of the candidates selected in one and the same selection, placement in the order of merit can be adopted as a principle for determination of seniority but where the selections are held separately by different recruiting authorities, the principle of initial date of appointment/continuous officiation may be the valid principle to be considered for adjudging inter se seniority of the officers in the absence of any rule or guidelines in determining seniority to the contrary.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUDHIR KUMAR ATREY — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ. )…
Service Law – Respondent is a club in strict sense and not public, ‘restaurant and eating place’ the conclusion appears to be inevitable that the respondent club cannot be characterized as premises which was ‘wholly or principally’ used for the business of supply of meals and refreshment to the public. In the first place as already noticed, the members of the Club and their guests and family members cannot be described as the ‘public’ . HELD There is no finding also that the club was providing lodging. In such circumstances, the question that should have been asked was, whether, being a club, which was not residential in nature, it stood exempted. This was not done. Appeal dismissed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH P.B. NAYAK AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR, BHILAI STEEL PLANT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : K.M Joseph and Pamidighantam Sri…
Perusal of clause 17 of the 1992 deed would reveal that the partners have right to expel an erring partner/partners on the grounds specified therein. The 1995 Deed does not have any conflicting provision. The clauses in the 1992 Deed, which are not superseded by the 1995 Deed, would still continue to operate. The trial court has given sound reasons, while upholding the expulsion of the plaintiffs. We see no reason to interfere with the same, the appeal is partly allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH V. ANANTHA RAJU AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. T.M. NARASIMHAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, Sanjiv Khanna and B.R.…
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Civil contempt – Guilty of willful disobedience of order in respect to the levy made-Merely because a subordinate official acted in disregard of an order passed by the Court, a liability cannot be fastened on a higher official in the absence of knowledge – When two views are possible, the element of willfulness vanishes as it involves a mental element – It is a deliberate, conscious and intentional act
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DR. U.N. BORA, EX. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. ASSAM ROLLER FLOUR MILLS ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before :…
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – Compensation – Claim petition filed by mother in law ‘dependent’ – Maintainability -Mother in law of deceased is legal representative under Section 166 of MV Act and entitled to maintain the claim petition.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH N. JAYASREE AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari,…
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 482 – Using casteist slur against neighbour – Quashing of proceedings – Compromise – Article 142 powers can be used – Mere fact that the offence is covered under a ‘special statute’ would not refrain this Court or the High Court, from exercising their respective powers under Article 142 of the Constitution or Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Proceedings quashed
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH RAMAWATAR — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI, Surya Kant and Hima Kohli, JJ. ) Criminal…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 376(2)(f) read with Section 511 -It is a settled preposition of Criminal Jurisprudence that in every crime, there is first, Mens Rea (intention to commit), secondly, preparation to commit it, and thirdly, attempt to commit it. If the third stage, that is, ‘attempt’ is successful, then the crime is complete. If the attempt fails, the crime is not complete, but law still punishes the person for attempting the said act. ‘Attempt’ is punishable because even an unsuccessful commission of offence is preceded by mens rea, moral guilt, and its depraving impact on the societal values is no less than the actual commission.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Appellant Vs. MAHENDRA ALIAS GOLU — Respondent ( Before : Surya Kant and Hima Kohli, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 25 – Matrimonial Case – Transfer of – Family Court at Gurugram (Haryana) to any other court of competent jurisdiction at Gwalior(M.P.) – Both the parties will cooperate with the competent court of jurisdiction at Gwalior for expeditious disposal of the petition – Petition allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA SINGLE BENCH BABITA SRIVASTAVA — Appellant Vs. VINOD SRIVASTAVA — Respondent ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna, J. ) Transfer Petition(s)(Civil) No. 1867 of 2019 Decided on…