Initiation of contempt proceedings – Notifications providing for consequential seniority in promotion to the Members of the SC/ST communities – In the absence of any quantifiable data relating to the issue of backwardness and inadequacy of representation of the concerned classes in public employment, no benefit of consequential seniority could be extended
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH BAJRANG LAL SHARMA — Appellant Vs. C.K. MATHEW AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, Indira Banerjee and M.R. Shah, JJ.…
State Has Solemn Constitutional Duty To Assist Court In Dispensation Of Justice; Cannot Behave Like Private Litigant: SC Held it was absolutely not a defence of the State authorities to contend that they were not aware of their own notification
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. GRANULES INDIA LIMITED — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Navin Sinha and Krishna Murari, JJ. )…
SC Sets Aside NCDRC Findings Of Unfair Trade Practice Against Star TV & Airtel In Relation To KBC Show HELD there is no other cogent material on record upon which the National Commission could have placed reliance to render the finding of ‘unfair trade practice’ under Section 2(1)(r)(3) (a) of the 1986 Act”,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STAR INDIA (P) LTD. — Appellant Vs. SOCIETY OF CATALYSTS AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and R. Subhash Reddy,…
Registration Act, 1908 – Sections 31, 88, 89, 32, 34 and 36 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Section 100 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 53(A) – Registration of deed of conveyance – HELD The deed in question does not fall within Sections 31, 88 and 89 of the Registration Act. Section 32 of the said Act does not require presence of both parties to a deed of sale when the same is presented for registration – Not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of the High Court
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH H.P. PUTTASWAMY — Appellant Vs. THIMMAMMA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 3975…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 read with Sections 120-B/34, 147, 148 and 149 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 161 – Murder by gunshots – There has been no wrong or improper exercise of discretion on the part of the High Court in granting bail to the accused
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRABHAKAR TEWARI — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose, JJ. ) Criminal…
Army Act, 1950 – Section 20 – Army Rules, 1954 – Rule 17 – Dismissal by Chief of the Army Staff – While exercising the power under Section 20 of the Army Act, the only procedure which is required to be followed would be under rule 17 of the Army Rules, namely, a person who is sought to be dismissed or removed from service has been informed of the particulars of the cause of action against him and allowed reasonable time to state in writing any reasons
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANJAY MARUTIRAO PATIL — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and M.R. Shah, JJ. )…
Mere Delay In Intimating Insurance Company About The Theft Cannot Be A Ground To Deny Insurance Claim: SC
Mere Delay In Intimating Insurance Company About The Theft Cannot Be A Ground To Deny Insurance Claim: SC [Read Judgment] Ashok Kini 24 Jan 2020 5:21 PM The Supreme Court…
Liberal Approach In Granting Bail In NDPS Uncalled For, Says SC HELD “Underlying object of Section 37 is that in addition to the limitations provided under the CrPC, or any other law for the time being in force, regulating the grant of bail, its liberal approach in the matter of bail under the NDPS Act is indeed uncalled for.”
Liberal Approach In Granting Bail In NDPS Uncalled For, Says SC [Read Judgment] Ashok Kini 24 Jan 2020 5:39 PM “The jurisdiction of the Court to grant bail is circumscribed…
Service Law – Appointment of VicePrincipal – it is seen that Clause 4(4) of Ordinance XVIII would indicate that the prior approval from the University is required to be taken. However, the tabular form extracted and taken note by the Division Bench in para 6 of the order would indicate that on most of the occasions the approval has been granted post facto -It is no doubt true that when a procedure is contemplated the same is required to be followed. However, in the present fact the very manner in which the appellants have proceeded to deny the benefit to the respondent would indicate that the action is not bonafide
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GOVERNING BODY SWAMI SHRADDHANAND COLLEGE — Appellant Vs. AMAR NATH JHA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi and A.S. Bopanna, JJ.…
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 142 – Writ of Habeas Corpus – Non-benfit of Premature release – Petitions for habeas corpus were filed on the ground that the State has not given benefit of the premature release referred to the petitioners whereas many others have been given the benefit – It is a settled principle of law that a writ of habeas corpus is available as a remedy in all cases where a person is deprived of his/her personal liberty
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE HOME SECRETARY (PRISON) AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. H. NILOFER NISHA — Respondent ( Before : S. Abdul Nazeer and Deepak Gupta, JJ.…