Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 – Sections 7, 8, 10 and 11 – Rights of child – It is indisputed that the rights of the child need to be respected as he/she is entitled to the love of both the parents – Even if there is a breakdown of marriage, it does not signify the end of parental responsibility – It is the child who suffers the most in a matrimonial dispute
Parental Responsibility Does Not End With Breakdown Of Marriage: SC [Read Judgment] LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK 18 Feb 2020 5:14 PM “The Courts should decide the issue of custody on a…
Notion That Women Are ‘Weaker Sex’ Constitutionally Flawed: SC Calls For Change In Mindset HELD ‘Absolute Exclusion Of Women From Command Appointments In Army Illegal’
Notion That Women Are ‘Weaker Sex’ Constitutionally Flawed: SC Calls For Change In Mindset [Read Judgment] Ashok Kini 17 Feb 2020 5:34 PM “If society holds strong beliefs about gender…
HELD that where the initial appointment is only ad hoc and not according to Rules and made as a stop gap arrangement, the officiation in such post cannot be taken into account for determining seniority. It was further held that the period of officiation can be counted if the initial appointment is not made by following the procedure laid down by the Rules but the appointees continued in the post uninterruptedly till the regularisation of his service in accordance with the Rules
UPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VINOD GIRI GOSWAMI AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Deepak…
High Court has totally erred in relying on the lease deed dated 12.3.1997, which was found to be insufficiently stamped and brushing aside the report of the Registrar (Judicial), when the respondents had failed to pay the insufficient stamp duty and penalty as determined by the Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court of Karnataka. Dismissed
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M/S. DHARMARATNAKARA RAI BAHADUR ARCOT NARAINSWAMY MUDALIAR CHATTRAM AND ORS. — Appellant Vs. M/S BHASKAR RAJU & BROTHERS AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before…
HELD we find that the High Court erred in law in interfering with the finding of fact recorded by the trial court as affirmed by the First Appellate Court. The findings of fact cannot be interfered with in a second appeal unless, the findings are perverse. The High Court could not have interfered with the findings of the fact.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH C. DODDANARAYANA REDDY (DEAD) BY LRS. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. C. JAYARAMA REDDY (DEAD) BY LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before :…
HELD Once the evidence has been accepted by the departmental authority, in exercise of power of judicial review, the Tribunal or the High Court could not interfere with the findings of facts recorded by reappreciating evidence as if the Courts are the Appellate Authority.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. N. GANGARAJ — Respondent ( Before : S. Abdul Nazeer and Hemant Gupta, JJ. )…
“Vishesh Krishi Upaj Yojna” HELD We find that the export-oriented units cannot use the appellant for export under the Scheme and to claim benefit of export when it is not permissible for them directly.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. NOLA RAM DULICHAND DAL MILLS AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Deepak Gupta and…
In view of the Circular issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, the custom duty is to be calculated on the sale price and not on the duty as is payable on the date of deemed expiration of permitted period of warehouse. Such Circular of the Board is binding on the Revenue. Therefore, the custom duty has to be paid on the basis of sale proceeds realised
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M/S. ASSOCIATED CONTAINER TERMINAL LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar, Hemant Gupta And Dinesh…
The matter is remitted to the trial court to decide the objection of admissibility of the document on account of being insufficiently stamped in light of the findings recorded, after evidence is led by the parties.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. Z. ENGINEERS CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. BIPIN BIHARI BEHERA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Abdul Nazeer…
……..it is evident that the 1976 Rules prescribed that a licence had to be obtained for the purposes of storing Hexane of the quantity involved in the instant case, and the Appellant has failed to comply with this requirement………..In the absence of such a licence, the Appellant could not have lawfully stored Hexane…….Non disclosure…..Respondent was justified in repudiating the claim of the Appellant on this ground.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S BASPA ORGANICS LIMITED — Appellant Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and R. Subhash Reddy,…






