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

In the present case, 440 vacancies were advertised; they were to be considered together; obviously, in respect of older vacancies which arose for previous years, the qualifications applicable for the vacancy years were applicable – None of the appellants disputed that they were ineligible in terms of the old rules, as they did not hold the requisite intermediate qualifications in the science stream – Appellants’ contention, in this regard too, consequently fails – Appeal dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUMAN DEVI AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra Bhat,…

Construction of Road over Bridges – Felling of trees – As per the Report of the Expert Committee submitted, primarily, about 50 trees have already been felled and potentially another 306 trees are to be felled. As per the Report, many of the trees can be called ‘historical trees’ ,

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ASSOCIATION FOR PROTECTION OF DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S.A.…

Appeal against acquittal – Dying declaration – the accused is able to create a doubt not only with regard to the dying declaration but also with regard to the nature and manner of death, the benefit of doubt shall have to be given to the accused – Therefore much shall depend on the facts of a case – There can be no rigid standard or yardstick for acceptance or rejection of a dying declaration.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NARESH KUMAR — Appellant Vs. KALAWATI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Navin Sinha and Krishna Murari, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 35…

Permanent Commission for Women Officers (Army) – Evaluation criteria set by the Army constituted systemic discrimination against the petitioners – Pattern of evaluation deployed by the Army, to implement the decision in Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya, (2020) 7 SCC 469 disproportionately affects women – This disproportionate impact is attributable to the structural discrimination against women, by dint of which the facially neutral criteria of selective ACR evaluation and fulfilling the medical criteria to be in SHAPE-1 at a belated stage, to secure PC disproportionately impacts them vis-à-vis their male counterparts.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LT. COL. NITISHA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M.…

IBC – Adjudicating Authority cannot interfere on merits with the commercial decision taken by the Committee of Creditors – Limited jurisdiction in matter of approval of resolution plan – Jurisdiction of the Appellate Authority is also circumscribed by the limited grounds of appeal provided in Section 61 of the Code

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH JAYPEE KENSINGTON BOULEVARD APARTMENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. NBCC (INDIA) LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh…

Enquiry at the Stage of Pre-Registration of FIR – Permissibility – Such a preliminary enquiry would be permissible only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not and only thereafter FIR would be registered – Therefore, such a preliminary enquiry would be in the interest of the alleged accused also against whom the complaint is made.

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

Loan moratorium case – There shall not be any charge of interest on interest/compound interest/penal interest for the period during the moratorium from any of the borrowers and whatever the amount is recovered by way of interest on interest/compound interest/penal interest for the period during the moratorium, the same shall be refunded and to be adjusted/given credit in the next instalment of the loan account – There is no rational to restrict such relief with respect to loans up to Rs. 2 crores only

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SMALL SCALE INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURES ASSOCIATION (REGD.) — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy…

Service Matters

Suspension – Manipulation in weight measurement – Chairman of the Administrative Committee to be a Disciplinary Authority – Since the Chairman of the Administrative Committee happens to be the Registrar, the decision to impose punishment may not require prior approval

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH CHAIRMAN ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE U.P. MILK UNION AND DAIRY FEDERATION CENTRALIZED SERVICES — Appellant Vs. JAGPAL SINGH — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit,…

You missed