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

Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointments HELD Determination of Seniority – Services rendered by the ad hoc appointees prior to their regularisation as per the 1979 Rules shall not be counted for the purpose of seniority, vis-à-vis, the direct recruits who were appointed prior to 1989 and they are not entitled to seniority from the date of their initial appointment in the year 1985.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RASHI MANI MISHRA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and…

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Bogus donation – Cancellation of Trust Registration – HELD Donations were received by way of cheques out of which substantial money was ploughed back or returned to the donors in cash – The facts thus clearly show that those were bogus donations

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA — Appellant Vs. BATANAGAR EDUCATION AND RESEARCH TRUST — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Ajay…

Circumstantial evidence – Last seen theory – If the accused fails to offer any plausible explanation, an adverse inference can be drawn against the accused – HELD the Courts have to not only consider the factum of last seen, but also have to keep in mind the circumstances that preceded and followed from the point of the deceased being so last seen in the presence of the accused.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SURAJDEO MAHTO AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI, Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose,…

Insecticides Act, 1968 – Ss 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 33, 29 – (CrPC) – Ss 200 & 202 – Misbranding HELD Proviso to Sec 200 of Cr PC, the Magistrate, while taking cognizance, need not record statement of such public servant, who has filed the complaint in discharge of his official duty – Further, by virtue of Section 293 of Cr PC, report of the Government Scientific Expert is, per se, admissible in evidence – Cr PC itself provides for exemption from examination of such witnesses, when the complaint is filed by a public servant

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. CHEMINOVA INDIA LTD AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Navin Sinha and R. Subhash…

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 17(2) – Award of Emergency Arbitrator – It is wholly incorrect to say that Section 17(1) of the Act would exclude an Emergency Arbitrator’s orders. HELD A party cannot, after it participates in an Emergency Award proceeding, having agreed to institutional rules made in that regard, that thereafter it will not be bound by an Emergency Arbitrator’s ruling.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AMAZON.COM NV INVESTMENT HOLDINGS LLC — Appellant Vs. FUTURE RETAIL LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R.F. Nariman and B.R. Gavai, JJ.…

A judgment and/or decree for money in favour of the Financial Creditor, passed by the DRT, or any other Tribunal or Court, or the issuance of a Certificate of Recovery in favour of the Financial Creditor, would give rise to a fresh cause of action for the Financial Creditor, to initiate proceedings under Section 7 of the IBC

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DENA BANK (NOW BANK OF BARODA) — Appellant Vs. C. SHIVAKUMAR REDDY AND ANR. — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian,…

Expunction of remarks against Advocate- Comments were unnecessary for the decision of the Court – Held that the offending remarks should be recalled to avoid any future harm to the Appellant ‘s reputation or his work as a member of the Bar – Order expunction of the extracted remarks in judgement – Appeal disposed of.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NEERAJ GARG — Appellant Vs. SARITA RANI AND ORS. ETC — Respondent ( Before : Rohinton Fali Nariman and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. ) Civil…

Service Matters

Penalty of compulsory retirement from the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge – Multiple transactions showing deposits and withdrawals of substantial amounts of money, it cannot be said that Full Court was not justified in taking the view that it did – Compulsory retirement upheld

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJINDER GOEL — Appellant Vs. HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Ajay Rastogi,…

You missed