Latest Post

Meritorious reserved category candidates must be considered against unreserved vacancies at the screening stage without availing any concession, prioritizing merit over category bias. The Commission under the WBCE Act has jurisdiction to adjudicate deficiencies in patient care services and qualifications of personnel, distinct from medical negligence handled by State Medical Councils. Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 37(1) — Revenue Expenditure vs. Capital Expenditure — Non-compete fee — Whether payment of non-compete fee constitutes allowable revenue expenditure or capital expenditure — Non-compete fee is paid to restrain a competitor, which protects or enhances the business profitability and facilitates carrying on the business more efficiently — Such payment neither creates a new asset nor increases the profit-earning apparatus for the payer, meaning the enduring advantage, if any, is not in the capital field — The length of time of the advantage is not determinative if the advantage merely facilitates business operations, leaving fixed assets untouched — Payment of non-compete fee made by the appellant (formed as a joint venture) to L&T (previous partner) to restrain L&T from competing for 7 years was essentially to keep a potential competitor out and ensure the appellant operated more efficiently and profitably, without creating a new capital asset or monopoly — Held: Payment of non-compete fee is an allowable revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act. (Paras 16, 25-29) Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 118 — Competency of child witness — Effect of delay and tutoring — Although a minor child is competent to testify, the reliability and evidentiary value of testimony given many years after the event, especially when the child has been residing with the complainant’s family (maternal grandparents), is significantly affected by the high possibility of memory distortion and tutoring. (Paras 5, 7, 10.2) Service Law — High Court Staff — Regularization — Discrimination — Appellants (Operator-cum-Data Entry Assistants/Routine Grade Clerks) appointed by Chief Justice under Rules 8(a)(i), 41, and 45 of Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976 — High Court refused regularization of Appellants while regularizing numerous similarly situated employees appointed through the same channel — Justification based on whether initial appointment was labelled ‘ad-hoc’ or whether appointment letter stipulated an examination — Held, distinction based solely on stipulations in appointment letters, when the channel of appointment and nature of work are identical, is arbitrary, unreasonable, and superficial — Such differential treatment violates Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution, as equals must be treated equally without rational differentia. (Paras 3, 4, 17, 23-28)

Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 – Reservation in promotion – Physical disability – Petitioner contends that the respondent was given employment on compassionate ground and the entry point was not of a person with disability

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH THE STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. LEESAMMA JOSEPH — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy,…

Misappropriation of public funds – Bank Employee – In banking business absolute devotion, integrity and honesty is a sine qua non for every bank employee. High Court has committed an apparent error in setting aside the order of dismissal of the respondent confirmed in departmental appeal by order – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (APPELLATE AUTHORITY) AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta and…

Whether the acceptance of a conditional offer with a further condition results in a concluded contract, irrespective of whether the offerer accepts the further condition proposed by the acceptor, Held, Acceptance of a conditional offer with a further condition does not result in a concluded Contract.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. PADIA TIMBER COMPANY(P) LIMITED — Appellant Vs. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF VISAKHAPATNAM PORT TRUST THROUGH ITS SECRETARY — Respondent ( Before :…

Original claimants are permitted to withdraw 25% of the enhanced amount of compensation, as awarded together with proportionate interest and cost, without furnishing any security and the balance 75% together with proportionate cost and interest, as awarded is permitted to be invested in a fixed deposit in any nationalised bank with cumulative interest, it will meet the end of justice and take care of the interest of both the parties.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH NAYARA ENERGY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and M.R.…

You missed