Latest Post

Haryana School Education Act, 1995, Section 22 — Civil Court Jurisdiction — Ouster of jurisdiction by statute must be express or implied — Section 22 only ousts jurisdiction where Government or its officers have power to adjudicate — Recovery of fees by a school is not a power conferred on Government/authorities — Civil court jurisdiction not ousted in matters of reasonable fee recovery. Penal Code, 1860 — Section 498A — Cruelty by husband or relatives of husband — Allegations in FIR were vague, general, and filed one year after admitted separation of the parties — No specific instances of cruelty were mentioned — Criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Quashing of FIR — Court can quash FIR if allegations, taken at face value, do not constitute any offence — Vague and general allegations of marital discord, without specific instances, do not prima facie constitute an offence under Section 498A IPC. Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 376(2), 450 — Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 4 — Sexual assault on a minor — Evidence of prosecutrix — Conviction can be based solely on the prosecutrix’s testimony if it inspires confidence — Corroboration of testimony of prosecutrix is not a requirement of law, but a guidance of prudence — Minor contractions or small discrepancies should not be a ground for throwing out the evidence of the prosecutrix. State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 — Section 29 — Liability of Financial Corporation taking possession of industrial unit for dues — Corporation acts as a trustee, liable only to the extent of funds in its hands after settling its dues, not personally liable. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 80 — Notice to Government or public officer — Mandatory requirement before instituting suit — Failure to issue notice or obtain leave renders suit not maintainable and decree a nullity, even if impleaded later. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Section 62; Section 14(1)(d) — Appeal against NCLAT order setting aside NCLT order directing return of property — NCLT had directed return of property based on CoC decision that property not required by corporate debtor — NCLAT set aside NCLT order invoking Section 14(1)(d) barring recovery of property during CIRP — Supreme Court held that Section 14(1)(d) not applicable as CoC and Resolution Professional initiated the process for returning property due to financial burden of rentals, and not a simple recovery by owner — Commercial wisdom of CoC regarding non-retention of property given primacy — NCLAT order set aside, NCLT order restored.

The question involved in the present appeal is the enforceability of the foreign award, against NAFED. HELD the award is ex facie illegal, and in contravention of fundamental law, no export without permission of the Government was permissible and without the consent of the Government quota could not have been forwarded to next season. The export without permission would have violated the law, thus, enforcement of such award would be violative of the public policy of India.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. ALIMENTA S.A. — Respondent ( Before : Arun Mishra, M.R. Shah and B.R.…

Central Excise Act, 1944 – Sections 5A and 11B – Determination of refund of excise duty – Subsequent notifications/industrial policies which were impugned before the respective High Courts are clarificatory in nature and are issued in public interest and in the interest of the Revenue and they seek to achieve the original object and purpose of giving incentive/exemption while inviting the persons to make investment on establishing the new undertakings and they do not take away any vested rights conferred under the earlier notifications/industrial policies and therefore cannot be said to be hit by the doctrine of promissory estoppel

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER ETC. ETC. — Appellant Vs. M/S V.V.F LIMITED AND ANOTHER ETC. ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Arun…

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS) – Sections 2(viia), 2(xxiiia) and 21 – Mixture of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substance – Determination of Small quantity or commercial quantity – HELD In case of seizure of mixture of Narcotic Drugs or Psychotropic Substances with one or more neutral substance(s), the quantity of neutral substance(s) is not to be excluded and to be taken into consideration along with actual content by weight of the offending drug, while determining the “small or commercial quantity” of the Narcotic Drugs or Psychotropic Substances.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH HIRA SINGH AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee and M.R.…

A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on Wednesday held that both the Centre and the State have concurrent powers to fix the prices of sugarcane. At the same time, the price’ fixed by the State Government for sugarcane cannot be lower than the ‘minimum price’ fixed by the centre, the Court added. Also, it is open to the States to fix the price higher than the price fixed by the Centre.

State & Centre Have Concurrent Power To Fix Sugarcane Prices; No Conflict If State’s Price Is Higher Than Centre’s ‘Minimum Price’ : SC [Read Judgment] Live Law News Network 22…

100% ST Reservations For Teacher Posts In Scheduled Areas Unconstitutional: SC Constitution Bench HELD interpreted the judgement prospectively and not “retrospectively” and held that the existing appointments made in excess of the 50 per cent reservation shall survive but shall cease to be effective in the future, thereby providing a relief to those who had already been appointed basis the saif government order.

100% ST Reservations For Teacher Posts In Scheduled Areas Unconstitutional: SC Constitution Bench [Read Judgment] Mehal Jain And Sanya Talwar 22 April 2020 1:58 PM The Supreme Court on Wednesday…

Development Control Rules for Greater Bombay, 1967 – Claim for construction of open spaces – Open spaces are required to be left for an approval of layout or for the purpose of creating lung space for the owners of other plots where constructions are permitted. HELD It is fairly well settled that in an approved layout, the open spaces which are left, are to be continued in that manner alone and no construction can be permitted in such open spaces. Appeal dismissed.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANJUMAN E SHIATE ALI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. GULMOHAR AREA SOCIETIES WELFARE GROUP AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Mohan M.…

Service Matters

Minimum Qualifications for Teachers in Medical Institutions Regulations, 1998 – Eligibility criteria – Post of Director of medical institutions – HELD This Court fail to understand as to how such direction can be given by the High Court for providing a relaxation which is not notified in the advertisement – While it is open for the employer to notify such criteria for relaxation when sufficient candidates are not available, at the same time nobody can claim such relaxation as a matter of right

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DR. THINGUJAM ACHOUBA SINGH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. DR. H. NABACHANDRA SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi and…

Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 – Section 26 – HELD The High Court, mainly on the ground that the Planning Authority has not prepared a draft development plan within the time prescribed under Section 26 of the MRTP Act, has allowed the writ petition with a further direction that the competent authority shall undertake the remaining work relating to preparation of draft development plan and submit to the State Government for sanction. – We are of the view that the said aspects need not be gone into at this stage by this Court. Chapter III of the MRTP Act deals with the preparation of development plan and as per Section 38 of the MRTP Act development plan is to be revised at least once in twenty years. We are of the view that it is not a fit case to interfere with the impugned order under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE MAYOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION — Appellant Vs. GOVIND BAJIRAO NAVPUTE AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and R. Subhash…

Service Matters

Service Law – Appointment – Primary Assistant Teachers – Various schemes were framed to fill up various vacant posts of teachers in different categories as per the policies framed by the State Government during the years 2001 and 2003 – Inordinate delay on the part of the appellants in approaching the High Court HELD Having regard to nature of such appointments, appointments made as per policies cannot be termed as illegal. Having regard to material placed before this Court and having regard to reasons recorded in the impugned order by the High Court, we are of the view that no case is made out to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CHANDER MOHAN NEGI AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and…

You missed