The purpose of verification of caste certificates by Scrutiny Committees is to avoid false and bogus claims – Reopening of inquiry into caste certificates can be only in case they are vitiated by fraud or when they were issued without proper inquiry – After conducting an inquiry and coming to a conclusion that Appellant belongs to Kailolan community and not to Valluvan community which is a Scheduled Caste – In view of the conclusion that the State Level Scrutiny Committee did not have the power to reopen the matter relating to the caste certificate – Appeal Allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH J. CHITRA — Appellant Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND CHAIRMAN STATE LEVEL VIGILANCE COMMITTEE, TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara…
(CPC) – Section 100 – Second Appeal – Reappreciation of evidence – Merely because the High Court refers to certain factual aspects in the case to raise and conclude on the question of law, the same does not mean that the factual aspect and evidence has been reappreciated.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH BALASUBRAMANIAN AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M. AROCKIASAMY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI, A.S. Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy,…
(CPC) – Or 41 R 4 and 27 – Suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession – One of several plaintiff or defendants may obtain reversal of whole decree where it proceeds on ground common to all – Plaintiff has not made out any case for declaration of title over the disputed property in her favour – Appeal dismissed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH P. ISHWARI BAI — Appellant Vs. ANJANI BAI AND ANOTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai, JJ. ) Civil…
West Bengal Municipal Act, 1996 – Sections 217 and 218 – Demolition of illegal construction – Sanction of building plan was cancel by municipal authorities – There is no error committed by the High Court in holding that the order by which action was directed to be initiated under Section 218 of the Act for demolition of the structure does not survive as the basis of the said order was the order passed by the Municipality.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DEBABRATA SAHA — Appellant Vs. SERAMPORE MUNICIPALITY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayats Act, 1961 – Section 28 – Motion of no-confidence in Adhyaksha – Provisions of Section 28 which ensured that an elected representative can only stay in power so long as such person enjoys the support of the majority of the elected members of the Zila Panchayat – As soon as such a person loses the confidence of the majority, he becomes unwanted – In a democratic set up, the will of the majority has to prevail.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SAU. SANGEETA W/O SUNIL SHINDE — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R.…
Scheduled Caste Reservation for post of Mayor in Municipal Corporation Held :- Dominant intent of the said Rules is to give effect to the reservation policy while ensuring that reservations are not repeated in particular Corporations and at the same time in all the Corporations, there shall be reservation, at some point of time, for all the eligible categories by rotation – Legislative intent is to exclude the Corporations which were earlier reserved for a particular category until all the categories are provided reservation.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANJAY RAMDAS PATIL — Appellant Vs. SANJAY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Restraining of arrest – Text of the order of High Court did not contain any direction restraining the arrest – Oral observations in court are in the course of a judicial discourse -Absent a written record of what has transpired in the course of a judicial proceeding, it would set a dangerous precedent if the parties and the investigating officer were expected to rely on unrecorded oral observations – High Court of issuing oral direction restraining the arrest of first respondent was irregular – Order set aside – Appeal allowed
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SALIMBHAI HAMIDBHAI MENON — Appellant Vs. NITESHKUMAR MAGANBHAI PATEL AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M.R. Shah, JJ.…
Appellant has raised false pleas and attempted to mislead Court, while the officials of NOIDA have not acted bona fide in the discharge of their duties – Appellant has stooped to the point of producing a fabricated sanctioned plan – Therefore, This Court confirm the directions of the High Court including the order of demolition and for sanctioning prosecution – Illegal Construction – Violation of building norms – Sanction of prosecution – Reimbursement to flat owners – Conclusion and directions
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUPERTECH LIMITED — Appellant Vs. EMERALD COURT OWNER RESIDENT WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M.R.…
Mental and physical torture and demands of dowry – Reduction of sentence – Compensation to wife and children – If the appellant is showing remorse and is willing to make arrangements for second wife and his two children born out of the wedlock – This Court not like to come in the way of such an arrangement, which should be beneficial to wife and her children – Object of any criminal jurisprudence is reformative in character and to take care of the victim. reduce the sentence to the period undergone in case the appellant pays to second wife for her benefit and her children’s benefit a sum of Rs.3.00 lakhs
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SAMAUL SK. — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. )…
Principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be applied merely on basis of designation – Basic nature of work of a Stenographer remained by and large the same whether they were working for an officer in the Secretariat or for an officer in a subordinate office – absolute equality ought not to be given – If one may say, there would have been no requirement to make these separate recommendations if everyone was to be treated on parity on every aspect.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. MANOJ KUMAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.…