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.…
Service law – Promotion – Merely because an employee is given a temporary charge to do a particular work of a particular post, it cannot be said that in fact he has been promoted to the said post
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. J.R. WILLIAM SINGH — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and M. R. Shah,…
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Sections 7, 9, 10 and 12-A – Initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process by financial creditor – Case of MSL in their appeal is that they want to run the company and infuse more funds – MSL has raised the funds upon mortgaging the assets of the corporate debtor only. In such circumstances, This Court are not engaging in the judicial exercise of determining the question as to whether after having been successful in a CIRP, an applicant altogether forfeits their right to withdraw from such process or not HELD Court direct the Resolution Professional to take physical possession of the assets of the corporate debtor and hand it over to the MSL
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MAHARASTHRA SEAMLESS LIMITED — Appellant Vs. PADMANABHAN VENKATESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Rohinton Fali Nariman, Aniruddha Bose and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ.…
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Section 115 and Order 22 Rule 5 – Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 15 – Will – Legal representatives – Appellant is the sole claimant to the estate of the deceased on the basis of Will – Executing Court has found that the appellant is the legal representative of the deceased competent to execute the decree – Appellant as the legal representative is entitled to execute the decree and to take it to its logical end HELD The determination as to who is the legal representative under Order 22 Rule 5 will of course be for the limited purpose of representation of the estate of the deceased, for adjudication of that case. No rs judicata
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VARADARAJAN — Appellant Vs. KANAKAVALLI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 5673…
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Section 27 and 27(1)(a) – Jurisdiction – The Domestic Violence Act can be filed in a court where the “person aggrieved” permanently or temporarily resides or carries on business or is employed
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SHYAMLAL DEVDA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. PARIMALA — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 – Arms Act, 1959 – Section 25 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 313 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27 and 106 – Murder of wife – Burden of Proof – Where an offence like murder is committed in secrecy inside a house, the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the nature and amount of evidence to be led by it to establish the charge cannot be of the same degree as is required in other cases of circumstantial evidence.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NAWAB — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and Navin Sinha, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 884 of…