Upon reaching a finding of arbitrariness in the selection process, the Court could at the most have issued a direction to the State Screening Committee to reassess the names of all candidates by giving due consideration to all relevant documents………….. it was not for the Court to sit in judgment over the merit of the candidates and substitute its reasoning for that of the Screening Committee. Appeal Allowed
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BAIDYANATH YADAV — Appellant Vs. ADITYA NARAYAN ROY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Ajay Rastogi, JJ. ) Civil…
Having regard to the material on record and since large amounts of money belonging to innocent investors have been siphoned off, as well as for the aforesaid reasons, the High Court, in our considered opinion, should not have released the Respondent on bail………the impugned order granting interim bail to the Respondent stands set aside.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION — Appellant Vs. RAMENDU CHATTOPADHYAY — Respondent ( Before : Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
Section 100 CPC – The order of the High Court interfering with concurrent findings of facts by two courts is, therefore, held to be unsustainable in exercise of the powers under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. The order of the High Court is consequently set aside. The orders dated 06.03.1998 and 13.06.2002 of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court are restored. The suit of the plaintiffs is dismissed. The present appeal is allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NARESH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. HEMANT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and Navin Sinha, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…
There was no reason for the National Commission to hold that there was any violation of the requisite conditions on part of the appellant and there was no justification to reduce the claim to the extent of 60% of the IDV of the vehicle. The conclusions drawn and the directions issued by the State Commission, in our view, were quite correct and did not call for any interference.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KAMLESH — Appellant Vs. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet Saran, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
SEction 149 IPC – the fact that all of them had entered the house around midnight and further fact that two out of those five accused used their deadly weapons to cause the death of the deceased was sufficient to attract the principles of vicarious liability under Section 149 IPC.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Appellant Vs. KILLU @ KAILASH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Indu Malhotra, JJ.…
Order VIII Rule 6A CPC: No Embargo On Filing Counter-Claim After Filing Written Statement
Order VIII Rule 6A CPC: No Embargo On Filing Counter-Claim After Filing Written Statement: SC [Read Judgment] BY: ASHOK KINI19 Nov 2019 6:01 PM Having said so, this does not…
Manipur Police Service Rules, 1965 – Rules 28, 28(i) and Rule 28(iii) – Seniority – Rule 28 of the MPS Rules, 1965 shows that seniority in the service shall be determined based on the date of appointment to the service – In particular Rule 28(i) of the MPS Rules, 1965 which is applicable to both promotees and direct recruits
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH K. MEGHACHANDRA SINGH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. NINGAM SIRO AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi, A.S.Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.…
Mining Activity – Grant of environmental clearance – Report shows that the ground reality is different from what was projected by the Appellant in its application for grant of the environmental clearance – Appeal dismissed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, STATE OF PUNJAB — Appellant Vs. STATE LEVEL ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY, PUNJAB — Respondent ( Before : L.…
Succession Act, 1925 – Sections 250, 263, 268, 276, 278, 283, 283(1)C and 283(1) – Probate of Will – Revocation of – If it is accepted that in probate proceedings persons who have been dis-inherited in the Will on mere no objection certificates by them without either being called by probate court to appear and certify their no objections or to file any pleading will lead to unsatisfactory result and may cause prejudice to persons who were not aware of the proceedings and are yet claimed to have submitted no objections
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANJU PURI — Appellant Vs. RAJIV SINGH HANSPAL — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and Navin Sinha, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 8455…
Central Excise Act, 1944 – Section 11A – Recovery of duties not levied or not paid or short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded – Scheme of Section 11A does not contemplate that before issuance of any show cause notice, there must, prima facie determination or hearing.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HALDIA — Appellant Vs. M/S. KRISHNA WAX (P) LTD. — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet Saran,…