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)

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – Section 8 – Summary Eviction Procedure – Right of a woman to secure a residence order in respect of a shared household cannot be defeated by the simple expedient of securing an order of eviction by adopting the summary procedure under the Senior Citizens Act 2007.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SMT. S VANITHA — Appellant Vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Indu…

Homeopathic Practitioners (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Code of Ethics) Regulations, 1982 – Regulation 6 – Prohibition of advertisement – competency to cure COVID-19 disease – When statutory regulations itself prohibit advertisement, there is no occasion for Homeopathic medical practitioners to advertise that they are competent to cure COVID-19 disease

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH DR. AKB SADBHAVANA MISSION SCHOOL OF HOMEO PHARMACY — Appellant Vs. THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AYUSH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok…

Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 90 and 114(e) – Relief of permanent injunction – Presumption Admissibility in evidence of thirty years old documents – Two reports of the Pleader Commissioner also confirmed the possessory title of the appellants along with property tax registers and municipal tax receipts – Appellants had more than sufficiently established their lawful possession of the suit property – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH IQBAL BASITH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. N. SUBBALAKSHMI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R.F. Nariman, Navin Sinha and Krishna Murari, JJ.…

HELD Investigation appears to be a sham, designed to conceal more than to investigate – Police has the primary duty to investigate on receiving report of the commission of a cognizable offence. This is a statutory duty under the Code of Criminal Procedure – Shri Satyarth Anirudh Pankaj, I.P.S. as the senior officer, State of Uttar Pradesh to carry out further investigation

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH AMAR NATH CHAUBEY — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R.F. Nariman, Navin Sinha and Krishna Murari, JJ.…

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Ss 8 & 11 – Landlord-tenant disputes governed by the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 are arbitrable as they are not actions in rem but pertain to subordinate rights in personam that arise from rights in rem overrule the ratio laid down in Himangni Enterprises vs. Kamaljeet Singh Ahluwalia, (2017) 10 SCC 706 and hold that landlord-tenant disputes are arbitrable as the Transfer of Property Act does not forbid or foreclose arbitration – However, landlord-tenant disputes covered and governed by rent control legislation would not be arbitrable

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH VIDYA DROLIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. DURGA TRADING CORPORATION — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, Sanjiv Khanna And Krishna Murari, JJ. )…

It is no doubt true that Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. is a subsidiary of the petitioner, namely, Coal India Ltd. But both are different and distinct legal entities. When no relief is sought against the petitioner herein in the writ petition and the company against whom relief is sought in the writ petition is not seeking a transfer, I do not know how the petitioner is entitled to seek transfer

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA SINGLE BENCH COAL INDIA LIMITED — Appellant Vs. M/S. VASUNDHARA COAL CARRIERS PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : V. Ramasubramanian, J. ) Transfer…

You missed