Army Rules, 1954 – Rule 13(3)(III)(v) – Discharge from service – Offences for which the red ink entries are awarded, cannot be said to be such gross misconduct which would make the appellant indiscipline and liable to be discharged from service and that too, after a period of long service rendered by him – Order of discharge is wholly unjustified and not sustainable at law – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH NARAIN SINGH — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Arun Mishra, M. R. Shah and B. R. Gavai,…
Army Act, 1950 – Sections 3, 3(i), 8 and 9 – Disability pension- There has to be a relevant and reasonable causal connection, howsoever remote, between the incident resulting in such disability/death and military service for it to be attributable. This conditionality applies even when a person is posted and leave; notwithstanding both being considered as ‘duty’.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. DHARAMBIR SINGH — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta, JJ.…
Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 – Sections 10(3)(a)(iii) and 14(1)(b) – Bonafide requirement – Nature of the requirement as stated by the landlord would be for running a garment shop .Mere non production of the approved plan or the documents to indicate financial capacity at this juncture cannot be held fatal in the instant facts
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH D. SASI KUMAR — Appellant Vs. SOUNDARARAJAN — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal Nos. 7546-7547 of…
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 34, 34(2), 34(5) and 34(6) – Permission to adduce evidence – The proceedings under Section 34 of the Act are summary proceedings and not a regular suit. When the order of the District Judge dismissing the application filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 does not suffer from perversity, the High Court, HC cannot interfere .
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. CANARA NIDHI LIMITED — Appellant Vs. M. SHASHIKALA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. ) Civil…
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 – Section 14 – Possession of secured asset – CJM is competent to process the request of the secured creditor to take possession of the secured asset under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, INDIAN BANK — Appellant Vs. D. VISALAKSHI AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ. )…
Securitisation and Reconstruction of financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 – Section 13 – Recovery of dues- Contempt petition.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED — Appellant Vs. MR. SANJIV GUPTA & OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose, JJ. )…
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 227 – Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 – Sections 15(1) and 15(7) – Payment of rent Amount of rent payable for the demised premises may be a factor which cannot be brushed aside, but the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, do not suggest any negligence, defiance or contumacious non payment of the amount payable to the landlord to warrant the taking of that “exceptional step” which is bound to render the tenant defenceless in his contest against the respondentslandlord.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DINA NATH (D ) BY LRS AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SUBHASH CHAND SAINI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Arun Mishra, M.R.…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 285 and 336 – Factories Act, 1948 – Sections 37, 38 and 92.We accept the appellant’s prayer to accept his confession of guilt, and, accordingly, convict him under Section 92 of the Factories Act with Fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHRI SUBIR BOSE — Appellant Vs. INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES, REPRESENTED BY S. M. PARANJPE AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Indu Malhotra and…
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 102 – Power of police officer to seize certain property – ‘any property’ used in sub-section (1) of Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not include immovable property. The power of seizure in Section 102 has to be limited to movable property – The phrase ‘any property’ in Section 102 will only cover moveable property and not immovable property.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH NEVADA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS DIRECTORS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Ranjan Gogoi, CJI., Deepak…
Once, the respondent chose not to controvert the allegations made against him in the show cause notice and pursued the matter with the competent authority only for taking a lenient view, he cannot be permitted to resile from that position. It would result in allowing the respondent to approbate and reprobate.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. LT. COL. KULDEEP YADAV — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Ajay Rastogi, JJ. )…