Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Compassionate Appointment Regulations, 2010 – Regulation 4(3) – Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 14 – Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 and 140 – Compassionate appointment – As the Respondent has received the compensation under the Act, he is not entitled for compassionate appointment under the Regulations – The judgment of the High Court is set aside the Appeal is allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION — Appellant Vs. DANISH KHAN — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta, JJ. ) Civil…
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 1 Rule 10 and Order 12 Rule 10 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 52- It is well settled law that mere non-mentioning of an incorrect provision is not fatal to the application if the power to pass such an order is available with the court.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRUTHVIRAJSINH NODHUBHA JADEJA (D) BY LRS. — Appellant Vs. JAYESHKUMAR CHHAKADDAS SHAH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose,…
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 142 – Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 – Section 16(1)(a) – Food adulteration – Minimum sentence – This Court are clearly of the view that the power under Article 142 cannot be exercised against the specific provision of law. Section 16(1)(a) of the Act lays down a minimum sentence of six months.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJ KUMAR — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Section 2(1)(c)(vii) – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 7 Rule 10 – Return of plaint-A dispute relating to immovable property per se may not be a commercial dispute. But it becomes a commercial dispute, if it falls under sub-clause (vii) of Section 2(1)(c) of the Act viz. “the agreements relating to immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce”. The words “used exclusively in trade or commerce” are to be interpreted purposefully. The word “used” denotes “actually used” and it cannot be either “ready for use” or “likely to be used” or “to be used”. It should be “actually used”. Such a wide interpretation would defeat the objects of the Act and the fast tracking procedure
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD. — Appellant Vs. K.S. INFRASPACE LLP AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : A.S. Bopanna and R. Banumathi, JJ. )…
Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002 – Rules 4(2) and 9(10)(b) – Ban of arrack in State of Kerala – Right of Employment.- It cannot be said that a vested right accrued to all the abkari workers to claim employment in retail outlets in the Corporation. This Court not agree with the submission of the Respondents that a vested right was created by the Government Order dated 20.02.2002 and that it was indefeasible.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (M AND M) CORPORATION LIMITED — Appellant Vs. P.P. SURESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and…
Appellant cannot be denied payment of pension applicable to the rank of Lt. Colonel (TS) on the ground that he fell short of the reckonable service of 21 years – Appellant retired in the year 1991 and has been made to run from pillar to post to get his rightful pension – It appropriate that apart from his entitlement to the pension applicable to the post of Lt. Colonel (TS), he is also entitled to be compensated for the avoidable litigation to which he was unnecessarily dragged into – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH IC 29547 L BOBBY JOSEPH — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta,…
Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission Act, 1982. In view of the enquiry report dated 06.05.2009 and the endorsement of the Management in their letters, it is clear that Respondent No.5 had actually worked during 1985 to 1995 and he was eligible for being considered for regularization of his service as LT Grade Teacher. The order of regularization was rightly upheld by the Division Bench – Appeal dismissed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH C/M KISAN INTER COLLEGE MANAGER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and…
Aarey Case – Cutting of trees – Status quo be maintained till the next date of hearing with respect to cutting of trees.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RE : FELLING OF TREES IN AAREY FOREST (MAHARASHTRA) ( Before : Arun Mishra and Mr. Ashok Bhushan, JJ. ) Suo Moto Writ Petition…
Article 137 Limitation Act Applies To Proceedings For Cancellation Of Probate/Letter Of Administration
JUDGEMENT -COURT – COPY In the present case, the letters of administration were granted in ancillary proceedings on 25.11.1994. The High Court took note of the fact that the notice of motion (in the disposed of proceeding) was filed on…