Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and other Authorities (Qualification, Experience and Other Conditions of Service of Members) Rules, 2020 – Advocates with experience of 10 years will be eligible for appointment as judicial members in tribunals – Members of Indian Legal Service will also be eligible for appointment as judicial members provided they fulfill same criteria as advocates.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATION — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta and S. Ravindra…
(IPC) – Ss 34, 471, 468, 467, 420, 419 and 406 – Quashing of complaint – Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage – Quashing of a complaint should rather be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SKODA AUTO VOLKSWAGEN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S.A. Bobde, CJI.,…
Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Subordinate Services (General Branch) Rules, 1975- HELD To forestall any apprehensions as to which of the appointees would be senior, and if those from the earlier process are appointed later, the proviso clarifies that candidates from the earlier process would rank senior
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANOHAR LAL JAT AND OTHERS ETC — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS ETC — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and…
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 50 – Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Section 13(1) – Foreign award – Enforcement of – A further appeal by a party aggrieved by an order of enforcement, even under the later enacted Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is not maintainable
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NOY VALLESINA ENGINEERING SPA, (NOW KNOWN AS NOY AMBIENTE S.P.A) — Appellant Vs. JINDAL DRUGS LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Indira…
I Tax Act, 1961 – S 40(a)(iib) – CoI, 1950 – Art 226 – VAT expenditure is not allowable as deduction – When the vires of S 40(a)(iib) of the I T Act were challenged, which can be decided by the High Court alone in exercise of powers under Art 226, the H C ought to have decided the issue with regard to vires of S 40(a)(iib) on merits, irrespective of the fact whether the matter was sub judice before the Income Tax Authority
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M/S TAMIL NADU STATE MARKETING CORPORATION LIMITED — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash…
Supreme Court Rules – Order 39 – Except for compelling factors and clear situation of deprivation of fair justice, the transfer power should not be invoked – Present bunch of cases are not perceived to be amongst such exceptional categories
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA SINGLE BENCH JATINDERVEER ARORA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB RESPONDENT — Respondent ( Before : Hrishikesh Roy, J. ) Transfer Petition (Criminal) No.…
Charges proved against the Respondent “were of neglect of duty” which resulted in pecuniary loss to the Railways High Court was therefore not justified in setting aside the order of compulsory retirement
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. RAJENDRA KUMAR DUBEY — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud,…
Termination of contract – Refund of interest – HELD the impugned judgment erred in directing payment of interest on the entire amount from 08.11.1994; instead, the direction to pay interest on Rs. 3,61,20,000/- shall operate with effect from 22.03.1995 to 19.05.1998.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND VICE CHAIRMAN GUJARAT MARITIME BOARD — Appellant Vs. ASIATIC STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Indira…
Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Properties-The courts’ role is to act as the guarantor and jealous protector of the people’s liberties: be they assured through the freedoms, and the right to equality and religion or cultural rights under Part III, or the right against deprivation, in any form, through any process other than law. Appeal allowed with costs Rs 75000
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH B. K. RAVICHANDRA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and S. Ravindra Bhat,…
Averments do not disclose that the appellant has a cause of action which invest him with right to sue – It is settled that where a person has no interest at all, or no sufficient interest to support a legal claim or action he will have no locus standi to sue – Election Petition has been rightly nipped in the bud- Appeal dismissed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH TEJ BAHADUR — Appellant Vs. SHRI NARENDRA MODI — Respondent ( Before : S. A. Bobde, C.JI., A. S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ.…