Latest Post

Hindu female’s property devolves equally on husband and daughter separately; gift of undivided coparcenary share needs no co-owner’s consent. A. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — Section 15(1)(a) — Devolution of Female Intestate’s Property — Properties of a Hindu female dying intestate devolve, in the absence of sons/daughters’ issue predeceasing her, upon her husband and daughter in equal shares under Section 15(1)(a); such undivided share in the husband’s hands does not partake the character of coparcenary property. Armed Forces — Air Force Order No. 33/2017 — Prior Permission for Civil Post — Mandatory Nature — Requirement of seeking prior permission before applying for a civil post, and subsequent grant of NOC, held mandatory and not merely procedural/directory, since AFO 33/2017 has necessary nexus with regulating premature discharge of Airmen and its object of maintaining operational preparedness of the Air Force. Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Deficiency of Service — Maintenance Contractor’s Liability — Elevator Malfunction — Comprehensive maintenance contractor, being both manufacturer and repair contractor with exclusive technical knowledge of safety interlocks and brake mechanisms, held principally deficient in service for failing to act on its own identified remedy (voltage stabiliser) despite repeated notice of persistent malfunction over several months preceding fatal accident. Public Service Commission consultation before extending officiating appointment is directory not mandatory; ad-hoc service counts towards seniority computation. A. Uttaranchal Civil Services (Executive Branch) Rules, 2005 — Rule 24(4) — Uttaranchal Public Service Commission (Limitations of Functions) Regulations, 2003 — Regulation 5(a) — Nature of Requirement — Requirement of consulting Commission before continuation of officiating appointment beyond one year held directory, not mandatory, applying the classic test of statutory construction; non-compliance does not invalidate the appointment where treating it as void would cause serious inconvenience to persons with no control over the defaulting authority. Reinstated judicial officer entitled to Selection/Super Time Scale despite missing ACRs; employer cannot benefit from its own wrongful discharge. A. Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 — Rules 49, 50 — Full Court Resolution dated 15.01.2011 — Selection Scale/Super Time Scale — Application on facts — Applying the valid ACRs for 2013 and 2014 (Parts I & II) — all rated “Very Good”/”Good” with integrity certified — the Judicial Officer, having completed five years’ notional service considering reinstatement with continuity, was held entitled to Selection Scale with effect from 16.07.2018 and, upon three years therein, Super Time Scale with effect from 16.07.2021, aligned with the dates of eligibility applied to junior officers.

(CrPC) – S 319 – Summoning order – Power under Section 319 CrPC is a discretionary and an extraordinary power – It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant – It is not to be exercised because the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that some other person may also be guilty of committing that offence

(2021) 2 SCALE 221 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH AJAY KUMAR @ BITTU AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Ashok…

Service Matters

Appointment – Members of the teaching faculty of the University be it Lecturer or Assistant Professor are entrusted with teaching, which is to be imparted according to academic calendar – It is in the interest of the University that all doubts regarding appointment of teachers are raised within a period of three months to have an early decision by Chancellor to give quietus to the disputes in the University.

(2021) 2 SCALE 227 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH POORAN CHAND — Appellant Vs. CHANCELLOR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and M.R.…

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 137 – Review petition – Rejection of Miscellaneous Application seeking recall of a judgment cannot be precluded from filing the present review petition – Rectification of an order emanates from the fundamental principles that justice is above all

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJENDRA KHARE — Appellant Vs. SWAATI NIRKHI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and Indu Malhotra, JJ. ) Review Petition (Crl.)…

Anticipatory bail – Appeal against – except to observe, that the impugned order, to say the least, is perverse; and also because no prejudice should be caused to accused and affect the trial against him – Judgment and order set aside – Investigating Officer is free to take accused into custody – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH G.R. ANANDA BABU — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar, B.R. Gavai and Krishna…

You missed