Latest Post

Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 — Section 3(b) — Exclusion of employees appointed on academic arrangement basis from regularization — Classification held unconstitutional — Section 3(b) lacks intelligible differentia and rational nexus to the object of the Act — Denial of regularization solely based on nomenclature is impermissible under Article 14 of the Constitution where duties, tenure, and conditions of service are similar to ad hoc or contractual appointees. Adverse Possession — Claiming title by adverse possession against the State/Union Government is not permissible, irrespective of the duration of possession — Such perfection of rights is not recognized against the government. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Quashing of criminal proceedings — High Court quashed proceedings against sister-in-law on ground of general and omnibus allegations, but declined relief to father-in-law and mother-in-law (appellants) — Allegations against appellants were similarly general and omnibus, with no specific role or overt act attributed to them — Delay in lodging FIR, coupled with lack of specific allegations, suggested possibility of FIR being a counter-blast to divorce petition filed by husband — High Court erred in applying different standards to similarly situated accused — Proceedings against appellants quashed. Companies Act, 2013 — Section 66 — Reduction of Share Capital — Procedural Fairness — Minority Shareholders — Valuation of Shares — Non-disclosure of valuation report and fairness report in notice for general meeting — Held, not a “tricky notice” as statutory requirement for valuation report not mandated under Section 66 — Valuation by a related agency — Held, not a conflict of interest where internal auditor is independent and valuation agency follows accepted norms — Discount for Lack of Marketability (DLOM) — Held, applicable to illiquid shares, especially in absence of oppression — Share price fixation — Held reasonable based on market value of subsidiary, past offers, and rights issue. Specific Performance of Agreement to Sell — Trial Court decreed suit for specific performance of sale agreement — High Court set aside Trial Court’s decree — Held, Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) executed on the same day as sale agreement established that sale agreement was sham and nominal, executed as security for loan — Plaintiff’s failure to disclose MoU in plaint indicated withholding of material facts and lack of bonafides — Equitable relief of specific performance denied — Appeal dismissed.

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – IPC , 1860 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Ss 165 – Constitution of India, Art 14 – Corruption Charges – Punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the allegation of corruption, is without merit – It is a settled legal proposition that the Disciplinary Authority has wide discretion in imposing punishment for a proved delinquency, subject to principles of proportionality and fair play

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH PRAVIN KUMAR — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, S. Abdul Nazeer and Surya Kant,…

N D P S Act, 1985 – Ss 20(b)(ii)(B) & 50 – Possession 20 kg – Ganja from the motor cycle – NDPS Trial is not vitiated merely because ownership of Vehicle from which Contraband was seized is not established – It is enough to establish and prove that the contraband articles were found from the accused from the vehicle purchased by the accused

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH RIZWAN KHAN — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and M.R. Shah, JJ.…

Service Matters

Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 – S 45 – Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Employees Corporation Pension Regulations, 1989 – Regulations 3, 3(1), 3(k) and 43 – Rejection of pension – HELD Merely because the respondent had withdrawn the entire CPF amount prior to his absorption would not make any difference because the CPF account was closed by the Board on the employee’s absorption – Appeal dismissed.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. GOVERDHAN LAL SONI AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and…

Wealth-Tax Act, 1957 – Sections 21AA and 167A – Club Rules – Rule 35 – Liability to pay Wealth Tax – Section 21AA does not enlarge the field of tax payers but only plugs evasion -applying the ratio of CWT v. Trustees of H.E.H. Nizam’s Family 108 ITR 555 (1977), HELD club members fixed body as on the date of liquidation. Appeal allowed.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M/S BANGALORE CLUB — Appellant Vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX AND ANOTHER — RespondentS ( Before : R. F. Nariman, Navin Sinha…

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 – Regulation 36A – Invitation for expression of interest- HELD The second meeting of the Committee of Creditors was held on 27.03.2018. The advertisement was approved in the said meeting – It was the unamended Regulation 36A that was in force at that time – This has not been appreciated by NCLAT, order of is flawed

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH THE KARAD URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED — Appellant Vs. SWWAPNIL BHINGARDEVAY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. A. Bobde, CJI., A.…

Service Matters

Service Law – Recruitment – Post of District Judges (Entry Level) – Grievance of the petitioners is that despite being the senior most in the cadre of District Judges, HELD a person holding a judicial office is better placed, as he is assured of a career progression (though in a limited sense) after being placed in something like a conveyor belt. There is no such assurance for an advocate – Appeal Dismissed.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH R. POORNIMA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. A. Bobde, CJI., A. S.…

Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 – Rule 32(e) – Misbranded Standards – Product had the necessary barcode on it that contained all the relevant information as required by Rule 32(e) such as batch no./code no./lot no etc HELD information under Rule 32(e) with regard to the lot/code/batch identification to facilitate it being traced to the manufacturer are available prosecution to continue and it will be an abuse of the process of law

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH RAGHAV GUPTA — Appellant Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : R.F. Nariman, Navin Sinha and Indira Banerjee,…

You missed