Service Law—Higher Qualification—Possession of higher qualification does not always mean that candidate has requisite prescribed lower qualification for the post Service Law—Qualification—It is no part of the role or function of judicial review to expand upon the ambit of the prescribed qualifications
2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 3443 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1953 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice U.U. Lalit Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud Civil Appeal…
Arbitrator—Appointment of—Challenge to—When an arbitrator was allegedly appointed against the terms of the agreement (arbitration clause) the provisions of 5.11(6) cannot be invoked to challenge such appointment Arbitrator—Appointment of—Amendment of 2015—General conditions of the contract cannot be taken to be the agreement between the parties so as to apply the provisions of the amended Act
2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 3433 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1952 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Indira Banerjee Civil Appeal Nos. 11824-11825…
Constitution of India, 1950, Art.215 and S. 142-Inherent Powers-Recall of own order-High Court, being superior Court of record, has the jurisdiction to recall their own orders.
2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 3427 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1951 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.F. Nariman Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah Civil Appeal No. 11822…
Service Law—Continuous Service—Once it is established that the employee had voluntarily abandoned his service, he could not have been in “continuous service” as defined under S.2(oo) of the Act-Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, S.2(oo).
2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 3419 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1950 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before , Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Indu Malhotra Civil Appeal…
Unauthorised Possession—To prove that the possession is legal, prima facie plaintiff has to prove that he is either the owner of such property or is in possession as a lawful tenant or is in its permissive possession with the express consent of its true owner
2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 3416: 2018 LawHerald.Org 1949 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Indu Malhotra Civil Appeal Nos. 11761-11762…
Service Law-Exparte Award—Industrial Courts has the jurisdiction to entertain an application for setting aside an award made after thirty days of its publication
2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 3408 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1948 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan Hon’ble Mr. Justice Indu Malhotra Civil Appeal No. 8320…
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, S.12—Housing—Delay in Delivering Possession—Subsequent purchaser is entitled to maintain complaint against builder for delay in delivery of possession of flat.
2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 3402 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1947 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Subhash Reddy Civil Appeal…
ALOK VERMA, CBI DIRECTOR Case–Contention of the Attorney General that the action against Verma cannot be regarded as “transfer” or “removal”, as he was merely taken off charge, Repelled by court. “the term ‘transfer’, as used in section 4B of the DSPE Act, cannot be understood in its traditional sense and must be interpreted as including actions which impact the functioning of the CBI Director – held that the word “transfer” has to be understood as encompassing all acts which affect the independent functioning of CBI Director” Further Held “Vineet Narain and others vs. Union of India and another, (1998) 1 SCC 226 case cannot be disregarded, and the subsequent enactment of the CVC Act, introducing amendments to the DSPE Act, in pursuance of the 1997 judgment was with the object of ensuring absolute insulation of the CBI Director.”
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ALOK KUMAR VERMA — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Ranjan Gogoi, C.J.I, Sanjay Kishan Kaul and K.M.…
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, S.12~Consumer Complaint—Class Action–Notice–For filing ‘Class Action’ complaint u/s 12(l)(c) of the 1986 Act notice under 0.1 R.8(2) CPC is mandatory-Civil Procedure Code, 1908, 0.1R.8.
2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 3395 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1945 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Subhash Reddy Civil Appeal…
Noncompoundable offence – Quashing of criminal proceedings on the ground that the accused and the original Complainant have settled the dispute amicably – Despite any settlement between the Complainant on the one hand and the accused on the other, the criminal proceedings for the offences under Section 307 of the IPC cannot be quashed, as the offence under Section 307 is a noncompoundable offence
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Appellant Vs. KALYAN SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : D. Y. Chandrachud and M. R. Shah, JJ.…