Latest Post

Cochin University of Science and Technology Act, 1986 — Section 31(10) and 31(11) — Selection and Appointment — Validity of Rank List and Communal Rotation — Harmonious Construction — Section 31(10) stipulates that the Rank List remains valid for two years, and vacancies arising during this period “shall be filled up from the list so published” — Section 31(11) mandates that “Communal rotation shall be followed category-wise” — These sub-sections operate in distinct spheres but are not mutually exclusive; the Rank List’s validity period (Sub-sec 10) co-exists with the mandatory application of communal rotation (Sub-sec 11) for every appointment made therefrom — Interpreting Sub-section (11) as becoming operative only after the Rank List expires would render the reservation/rotation requirement otiose during the list’s validity, defeating legislative intent and violating the doctrine of harmonious construction. (Paras 5, 5.2, 5.4, 5.5, 5.5.1, 5.5.2 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) —Section 302 read with Sections 149 and 148 — Murder —Conviction affirmed by High Court — Appeal to Supreme Court — Sufficiency of evidence — Role of interested/related witnesses — Deposition of PW-4 (mother of deceased and alleged eyewitness) scrutinized closely — Material contradictions found in PW-4’s evidence regarding the manner of assault and who informed her — Failure of prosecution to examine key witness (deceased’s granddaughter, who initially informed PW-4) — Independent witnesses (PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-9) turned hostile — Recovery of weapons based on accused’s memorandum/statement rendered unreliable when supporting witnesses hostile. (Paras 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15) Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 — Section 45A — Determination of contributions in certain cases — Preconditions for invoking Section 45A — Section 45A is a special provision for best-judgment assessment applicable only when an employer fails to submit, furnish, or maintain returns, particulars, registers, or records as required by Section 44, OR obstructs an Inspector or official in discharging duties under Section 45 — It is not an alternative mode of assessment available at the option of the Corporation — When records (ledgers, cash books, vouchers, etc.) are produced and the employer cooperates by attending multiple personal hearings, the mere allegation of inadequacy or deficiency of supporting documents does not satisfy the statutory threshold of “non-production” or “obstruction” to invoke Section 45A — Mere inadequacy of records does not confer jurisdiction under Section 45A. (Paras 14.6, 14.7, 24, 25, 27, 30) Tender and Contract — Eligibility Criteria — Interpretation of “prime contractor” and “in the same name and style” — Requirement of work experience — Where an NIT’s pre-qualification document requires “each prime contractor in the same name and style (tenderer)” to have completed previous work, and the term “prime contractor” is undefined, its meaning must be derived from common parlance as the tenderer primarily responsible for the contract offer; however, the requirement must be construed from the standpoint of a prudent businessman, considering the credentials and capacity to execute the work, not merely the name. (Paras 17, 20, 21.3) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 389 — Suspension of execution of sentence pending appeal and release on bail — Scope and distinction with bail — Appellate Court must record proper reasons for suspending sentence; it should not be passed as a matter of routine — The Appellate Court must not reappreciate evidence or attempt to find lacunae in the prosecution case at this stage — Once convicted, the presumption of innocence vanishes, and the High Court should be slow in granting bail pending appeal, especially for serious offenses like murder (Section 302, IPC). (Paras 6, 6.1, 6.2)

Cochin University of Science and Technology Act, 1986 — Section 31(10) and 31(11) — Selection and Appointment — Validity of Rank List and Communal Rotation — Harmonious Construction — Section 31(10) stipulates that the Rank List remains valid for two years, and vacancies arising during this period “shall be filled up from the list so published” — Section 31(11) mandates that “Communal rotation shall be followed category-wise” — These sub-sections operate in distinct spheres but are not mutually exclusive; the Rank List’s validity period (Sub-sec 10) co-exists with the mandatory application of communal rotation (Sub-sec 11) for every appointment made therefrom — Interpreting Sub-section (11) as becoming operative only after the Rank List expires would render the reservation/rotation requirement otiose during the list’s validity, defeating legislative intent and violating the doctrine of harmonious construction. (Paras 5, 5.2, 5.4, 5.5, 5.5.1, 5.5.2

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) —Section 302 read with Sections 149 and 148 — Murder —Conviction affirmed by High Court — Appeal to Supreme Court — Sufficiency of evidence — Role of interested/related witnesses — Deposition of PW-4 (mother of deceased and alleged eyewitness) scrutinized closely — Material contradictions found in PW-4’s evidence regarding the manner of assault and who informed her — Failure of prosecution to examine key witness (deceased’s granddaughter, who initially informed PW-4) — Independent witnesses (PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-9) turned hostile — Recovery of weapons based on accused’s memorandum/statement rendered unreliable when supporting witnesses hostile. (Paras 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15)

All India Council of Technical Education Act, 1987 – Section 2(g) – Technical education – Having realized the difficulties in view of dual regulations of pharmacy education under the PCI and AICTE HELD Therefore, even according to the Union of India, the word ‘pharmacy’ is to be deleted from the definition of ‘technical education’ contained in Section 2(g) of the AICTE Act.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH THE PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. DR. S.K. TOSHNIWAL EDUCATIONAL TRUSTS VIDARBHA INSTITUTE OF PHARMACY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before :…

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 80IA and 80IA(4)(i)(b) – – Deduction – As regards clause (b) of Section 80IA(4)(i), HELD the ITAT, as well as, the High Court have justly affirmed the view taken by the first appellate authority, holding that the respondent/assessee Company qualified for the deduction under Section 80IA being an enterprise carrying on the stated business pertaining to infrastructure facility Appeal dismissed.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR — Appellant Vs. M/S. CHETAK ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari,…

Service Matters

Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 – Section 1 – Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACP)- ACP Scheme which is now superseded by MACP Scheme is a matter of government policy – Interference with the recommendations of the expert body like Pay Commission and its recommendations for the MACP, would have serious impact on the public exchequer – HELD Impugned orders cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M.V. MOHANAN NAIR — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.…

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 11(6) – Appointment of arbitrator – Arbitration agreement entered into between the parties provides Hong Kong as the place of arbitration – Agreement between the parties choosing “Hong Kong” as the place of arbitration by itself will not lead to the conclusion that parties have chosen Hong Kong as the seat of arbitration -HELD Section 11 has no application to “International Commercial Arbitrations” seated outside India – Words in Clause 17.1 “without regard to its conflicts of laws provisions and courts at New Delhi shall have the jurisdiction” do not take away or dilute the intention of the parties in Clause 17.2 that the arbitration be administered in Hong Kong

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MANKASTU IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. AIRVISUAL LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. ) Arbitration…

Service Matters

HELD Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Services – Judicial review – Dismissal – Disciplinary action – Natural suspicion as to the integrity and honesty of the appellant in several land acquisition cases – Held, There is no explicit mention of any extraneous consideration being actually received or of unbecoming conduct on the part of the appellant – The order of dismissal dated 17.01.2006 passed by Respondent No. 1 is set-aside, and the appellant’s prayers for reinstatement with consequential benefits including retiral benefits, is accepted.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SADHNA CHAUDHARY — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : S.A. Bobde, CJI , B.R. Gavai and Surya Kant,…

Registration Act, 1908 – Section 17(1)(d) – Leases of immovable property – Lease deeds allegedly executed between the defaulting rice miller(s) and the respondent(s), as they do not satisfy the statutory requirements of Section 17(1) (d) HELD The writ petitions filed by the respondent lessees are dismissed, however, with liberty to pay dues with penalty/interest of the original rice millers and thereafter on production of ‘No Dues Certificate’ seek allocation of paddy for custom milling in accordance with the policy of FCI.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M/S. V.K. TRADERS AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S.A. Bobde, CJI , B.R.…

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(d) – Meaning of “Consumer” – Destruction of some part of the crop – Respondent lodged a consumer complaint alleging negligence and breach of contract on the part of the Appellant on the ground that the Appellant failed to buy back her produce, leading to the destruction of the greater part of the crop – Appellant contested the farmers’ claims before consumer fora on the preliminary point of maintainability right up to this Court, HELD Tendency to resist even the smallest of claims on any ground possible, by exploiting the relatively greater capacity of seed companies to litigate for long periods of time, amounts to little more than harassment of agriculturists, Appeal dismissed

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S NANDAN BIOMATRIX LIMITED — Appellant Vs. S. AMBIKA DEVI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and R. Subhash Reddy,…

V IMP :: Expeditious Adjudication Of Cheque Bounce Cases: SC Registers Suo Motu Writ Petition HELD “A matter which is supposed to be disposed of summarily by the trial court in six months, it took seven years for this case to be disposed of at the trial court level. A dispute of such nature has remained pending for 15 years in various courts, taking judicial time and space up till this Court”

Expeditious Adjudication Of Cheque Bounce Cases: SC Registers Suo Motu Writ Petition [Read Order] LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK 7 March 2020 7:28 PM The Supreme Court has registered a Suo Motu…

Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 14, 19 (1) (a), 19 (1) (c) and 21 – Organisation of political nature – Any organisation which habitually engages itself in or employs common methods of political action like ‘bandh’ or ‘hartal’ ,’rasta roko’, ‘rail roko’ or ‘jail bharo’ in support of public causes can also be declared as an organisation of political nature, according to the guideline prescribed in Rule 3 (vi) – Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH INDIAN SOCIAL ACTION FORUM (INSAF) — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Deepak Gupta, JJ. )…

Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 – Sections 7 and 11 – Adoption – Two important conditions as mentioned in Sections 7 and 11 of the Act of 1956 are the consent of the wife before a male Hindu adopts a child and proof of the ceremony of actual giving and taking in adoption – HELD Appellant was not adopted by the Respondent and her husband – Appellant had failed to prove that she has been adopted by the Respondent and her husband. – Appeal dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M. VANAJA — Appellant Vs. M. SARLA DEVI (DEAD) — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Deepak Gupta, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

You missed