Decided on : 06-12-2019 – Service law – Dismissal – Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification -It is settled law that interference with the orders passed pursuant to a departmental inquiry can be only in case of ‘no evidence’ – Sufficiency of evidence is not within the realm of judicial review
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. PHULPARI KUMARI — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta, JJ. )…
Decided on : 06-12-2019 After having accepted the appointment in FCI as per the Office Order dated 18.09.1973, it is not open to the Appellant-Union to take up the cause of the work charge employees and claim on their behalf benefits similar to those granted to the regular employees. – Appeals dismissed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KANDLA PORT WORKERS UNION @APPELANT Vs. FCI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Decided on : 06-12-2019 – Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 14 – There is no concept of negative equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India – Appellants cannot, as a matter of right, claim appointment on the basis of two ineligible persons being given the benefit and no direction can be given to the Respondents to perpetuate illegality
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HAV (OFC) RWMWI BORGOYARY AND OTHER ETC. — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and…
Decided on : 06-12-2019 Uttar Pradesh Industrial Training Institutes (Instructors) Service (Second Amendment) Rules, 2003 – Rule 8 – Appointment – Academic Qualification – Eligibility condition is that a candidate must have obtained a certificate in respective trade from NCVT – It is not necessary that a qualification prescribed in the Rules has to be possessed in one certificate
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJESH KUMAR DWIVEDI — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta, JJ. )…
Decided on : 06-12-2019 – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 300 and 302 – Murder – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 161 – Examination of witnesses by police – Extra-judicial confession -Extra-judicial confession of accused need not in all cases be corroborated
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DARSHAN SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 397 – Dacoity – Appeal against conviction and sentence – High Court itself has found prosecution witnesses have not been able to identify the appellant
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NAGARAJA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and K.M. Joseph, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 66…
Acquittal of co-accused–Not a ground in itself to discard the cogent evidence on record against main accused
(2019) AIR(SC) 947 : (2019) 127 ConLT 912 : (2019) 1 CriCC 794 : (2019) 1 Crimes 144 : (2019) 127 CutLT 912 : (2019) 2 JT 388 : (2019)…
SC Paves Way For Release Of P Chidambaram After 105 Days In Jail As He Gets Bail In INX Media [ED] Case
SC Paves Way For Release Of P Chidambaram After 105 Days In Jail As He Gets Bail In INX Media [ED] Case BY: LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK4 Dec 2019 10:41 AM…
The NGT has already directed the appellant to deposit Rupees one crore and has set up an expert committee to evaluate the impact of the appellant’s project and suggest remedial measures. In view of these circumstances, we uphold the directions of the NGT and direct that the committee continue its evaluation of the appellant’s project so as to bring its environmental impact as close as possible to that contemplated in the EC dated 2 May 2013 and also suggest the compensatory exaction to be imposed on the appellant
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KEYSTONE REALTORS PVT. LTD. — Appellant Vs. SHRI ANIL V THARTHARE AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Ajay…
NCLT and NCLAT would have jurisdiction to enquire into questions of fraud, they would not have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon disputes such as those arising under MMDR Act, 1957 and the rules issued thereunder, especially when the disputes revolve around decisions of statutory or quasi-judicial authorities, which can be corrected only by way of judicial review of administrative action.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M/S EMBASSY PROPERTY DEVELOPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Rohinton Fali Nariman, Aniruddha Bose…







