Service Law—Age Relaxation—A candidate who has availed of age relaxation in the selection process as a result of belonging to a reserved category cannot, thereafter, seek to be accommodated in or migrated to the general category seats
2019(3) Law Herald (SC) 2065 : 2019 LawHerald.Org 1258 (2019) 2 OriLawRev 241 : (2019) 9 SCALE 17 : (2019) 7 SCC 383 : (2019) 3 SCT 359 IN THE…
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Sections 112, 132(1)(c), 133, 134, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 208, 208(3), 209 – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 5, 279, 304 Part II and 304A IPC -………….we set aside the directions issued by the Gauhati High Court to the States of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh to issue appropriate instructions to their subordinate officers to prosecute offenders in motor vehicle accidents only under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and not the IPC.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH — Appellant Vs. RAMCHANDRA RABIDAS @ RATAN RABIDAS AND ANOTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Indu Malhotra and Sanjiv…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 498A, 306, 323 and 149 – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Sections 3 and 7 – Committed suicide – Reliance cannot be placed on the sole testimony of PW1, on the basis of which the Appellant was convicted under Sections 498A, 114 and 323 as there is no corroboration by PW4 who is alleged to have given the information to him. Other than the above allegation, the Appellant stands on the same footing as of Accused Nos. 3, 4 and 5 who have been acquitted by the High Court. As the accusation of the physical assault by the appellant on the deceased is not proved, he is entitled to be acquitted.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KANTILAL — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…
Underground sewer Scheme -……..we deem it appropriate for the State Government to consider and approve the sewer Scheme for Yeola Municipal Council.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. MADHOOR BUILDWELL PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. YEOLA MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta,…
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,…