Navy (Pension) Regulations, 1964 – Regulations 78, 105B, 107 and 107(1) – Quantification of disability pension – Individual – A person who has completed the period of engagement is entitled to disability element apart from service pension. The expression ‘service pension’ admissible is not restricted to the qualifying service provided under Regulation 78. It is not for the Courts to remedy the defect in the Statute.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. V.R. NANUKUTTAN NAIR — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta, JJ. )…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 34, 302, 341, 323, 325 and 307 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 32(1) – Murder – Appeal against conviction and sentence – Dying declarations – Deceased clearly states the names of both the Appellants – Appeal dismissed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DAYARAM AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : Indu Malhotra and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ. ) Criminal…
Acquittal in offences under Section 147, 148, 149 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860- HELD In a criminal trial, the prosecution can succeed only if the guilt of the accused is brought home. That the accused may have done the crime barely suffices. The case of the prosecution as sought to be made out must be established.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF UTTARAKHAND — Appellant Vs. DARSHAN SINGH — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and K.M. Joseph, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…
Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 – Rule 88 – Grant of pension – The services rendered by the respondents as GDS or other ExtraDepartmental Agents cannot be factored in for computing their qualifying services in regular posts under the postal department on the question of grant of pension.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. GANDIBA BEHERA — Respondent ( Before : Ranjan Gogoi, CJI, Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose, JJ.…
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 311(2)(b) – Dismissal of the judicial officers dispensing with the departmental inquiry. HELD The appeals are dismissed and the stay order is vacated, albeit we clarify that the respondents, in terms of the judgment passed by the Division Bench, would be required to proceed in accordance with law.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HARI NIWAS GUPTA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Indu Malhotra and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ. ) Civil…
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 34 and 37 – Levy of liquidated damages – the Division Bench of the High Court rightly set aside the order of the learned Arbitrator with regard to claim No.6 by holding that levy of liquidated damages/compensation is adjustable against the final bill payable to the appellant.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M/S. MITRA GUHA BUILDERS (INDIA) COMPANY — Appellant Vs. OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna…
Air Force Rules, 1969 – Rules 15(2), 15(2)(g)(ii) and Rule 15(2)(k) – Habitual offender -The show cause notice issued to the Respondent is in accordance with the Habitual Offenders Policy. A second warning letter is not required when it is decided to pass a final order without giving another chance. There is no violation of the procedure prescribed by the Policy –
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. 794898 T. EX. CORPORAL ABHISHEK PANDEY — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 300 302, 304, 304 Part I, 307, 504 and 506/34 – Murder – Common intention -intention is a matter of inference and when death is as a result of intentional firing, intention to cause death is patent unless the case falls under any of the exceptions.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH AWADHESH KUMAR — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Arun Mishra, M. R. Shah and S. Ravindra Bhat,…
Ayodhya Case verdicat – Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 142 – Inherent powers of the Supreme Court – Destruction of the mosque and the obliteration of the Islamic structure was an egregious violation of the rule of law – A wrong committed must be remedied.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CONSTITUTION BENCH M SIDDIQ (D) THROUGH LRS — Appellant Vs. MAHANT SURESH DAS AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ranjan Gogoi, C.J.I, S. A,…
Lacuna Left By Legislature Cannot Be Filled By Judicial Interpretation: “It is not for the Courts to remedy the defect in the Statute.”
Lacuna Left By Legislature Cannot Be Filled By Judicial Interpretation: SC “It is not for the Courts to remedy the defect in the Statute.” The Supreme Court has observed that…