Latest Post

Constitution of India, 1950 — Art. 16 and 226 — Public Employment — Direct Recruitment — Eligibility Criteria — Workshop Experience — Pendency of workshop renewal applications — Effect on candidates — Where a recruitment notification mandates a minimum of one year of experience in a Government-approved workshop, candidates cannot be prejudiced or disqualified merely because the workshop’s application for renewal of approval was pending with the State authorities during the period they gained experience — Depriving an otherwise eligible candidate of employment due to an administrative “period of eclipse” or delay on the part of state machinery is arbitrary and discriminatory–Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, 1985 INSC 137, relied on; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Atul Kumar Dwivedi, 2022 INSC 24, Distinguished. Right to Information Act, 2005 — S. 24(4) — Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment Act, 1947 — S. 2(1), S. 3 — “Intelligence and Security Organisation” — Scope and Applicability of Exemption — Jurisdiction of Special Police Establishment (SPE) — The expression “intelligence and security organisations” under Section 24 of the RTI Act implies that the concerned entity must be statutory or institutionally empowered to handle matters of intelligence and national/state security — The Special Police Establishment (SPE) of Madhya Pradesh, established under Section 2(1) of the Act of 1947, is clothed with a limited jurisdiction restricted strictly to investigating offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and select economic/fraud offenses under Sections 409, 420, and Chapter XVIII of the Indian Penal Code — Because neither the Lokayukt nor the SPE handles matters connected to general ‘intelligence’ and ‘security’, the SPE cannot be deemed an “intelligence and security organisation” under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act — Principle of institutional parity cannot be invoked to grant blanket exemptions to a anti-corruption investigation agency. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 11, Explanation IV — Constructive Res Judicata — Application of the principle depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, considering the ambit of earlier proceedings and the nexus of the matter to the controversy — It is founded on public policy to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and avoid parties being vexed twice over for the same litigation — Parties are expected to exercise reasonable diligence and bring forward every point that properly belonged to the subject of litigation and which they might and ought to have brought forward — Negligence, inadvertence, or accident in omitting a part of the case does not exempt from its application. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 165 and 166 — Liability for injuries sustained due to falling tree branch — Injuries caused by falling tree branch while vehicle was stationary under the tree during rain — Held, not an accident “arising out of the use of a motor vehicle” as the motor vehicle did not play an active role. [ Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) — Sections 24, 33(5), 36, 39 — Child-sensitive judicial processes — Mandatory safeguards for child victims — Courts must ensure child-friendly procedures, minimum intrusion, and psychological safety, avoiding re-traumatisation and secondary victimisation in all proceedings concerning children, especially those involving allegations of sexual abuse.

Constitution of India, 1950 — Art. 16 and 226 — Public Employment — Direct Recruitment — Eligibility Criteria — Workshop Experience — Pendency of workshop renewal applications — Effect on candidates — Where a recruitment notification mandates a minimum of one year of experience in a Government-approved workshop, candidates cannot be prejudiced or disqualified merely because the workshop’s application for renewal of approval was pending with the State authorities during the period they gained experience — Depriving an otherwise eligible candidate of employment due to an administrative “period of eclipse” or delay on the part of state machinery is arbitrary and discriminatory–Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, 1985 INSC 137, relied on; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Atul Kumar Dwivedi, 2022 INSC 24, Distinguished.

Right to Information Act, 2005 — S. 24(4) — Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment Act, 1947 — S. 2(1), S. 3 — “Intelligence and Security Organisation” — Scope and Applicability of Exemption — Jurisdiction of Special Police Establishment (SPE) — The expression “intelligence and security organisations” under Section 24 of the RTI Act implies that the concerned entity must be statutory or institutionally empowered to handle matters of intelligence and national/state security — The Special Police Establishment (SPE) of Madhya Pradesh, established under Section 2(1) of the Act of 1947, is clothed with a limited jurisdiction restricted strictly to investigating offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and select economic/fraud offenses under Sections 409, 420, and Chapter XVIII of the Indian Penal Code — Because neither the Lokayukt nor the SPE handles matters connected to general ‘intelligence’ and ‘security’, the SPE cannot be deemed an “intelligence and security organisation” under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act — Principle of institutional parity cannot be invoked to grant blanket exemptions to a anti-corruption investigation agency.

Income Tax Act, 1963 – Section – 245C, 245H, 245D – Application for settlement – The assessee approached the Settlement Commission (Commission) with an application under Section 245-C of the Act – Section 245-H empowers the Commission to grant immunity from prosecution to an applicant if it is satisfied that he has made full disclosure of his income and has fully cooperated with the Commission

  (1996) 2 AD 629 : (1996) 132 CTR 290 : (1996) 219 ITR 618 : (1996) 3 JT 144 : (1996) 2 SCALE 655 : (1996) 8 SCC 154…

Service Matters

Promotion – The respondents-employees were appointed to the posts of L.D.C. in 1970-71 – The Departmental Promotion Committee constituted for the purpose of selection for promotion to the post of U.D.C. had considered the appellant’s claim and found him fit. It regularised his services and has given him the promotion as he was senior to the respondents

  (1997) 10 JT 700 : (1997) 3 SCALE 91 : (1997) 9 SCC 658 : (1997) SCC(L&S) 1098 : (1997) 2 SCR 628 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA PRAHALLAD BARAL…

Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 – Section – 3(7) – Judicial separation – The claim made by learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, is that a wife who had separated in property from her husband, shall be treated to be a judicially separated wife for the purposes of Section 3(7) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960

  (1998) 7 JT 237 : (1998) 9 SCC 186 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA SAROJ BHARDWAJ (SMT) AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND OTHERS — Respondent (…

Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 – Section 95(2)(b) – Statutory liability of insurer – Scope of – The insured vehicle allowed to carry six passenger, the maximum liability of insurer is at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per passenger subject to total liability of Rs. 20,000/-. Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 – Section 110-B – Compensation – Considerations for determination of – Necessity to balance loss of future pecuniary benefit which could have accrued to the claimant – Decision partly on conjectures – Permissibility.

  (1971) ACJ 206 : AIR 1971 SC 1624 : (1971) 1 SCC 785 : (1971) SCR 20 Supp : (1971) 3 UJ 489 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA SHEIKHUPURA TRANSPORT…

Interpretation of deeds – Release deed – Scope of – Principle for construction of instrument relinquishing the property – Effect of wide language employed in the instrument. It is a well settled rule of interpretation of deeds of release that however wide and general the covenant of release may be, its operation must be restricted to the rights which are in the contemplation or in controversy between the parties and would not cover or comprehend rights which are never in the minds of the parties at that time.

  AIR 1975 SC 895 : (1976) 1 SCC 299 : (1975) 7 UJ 303 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RAJAGOPAL PILLAI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. PAKKIAM AMMAL AND OTHERS…

Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 252, 168, 250 – Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 – Section 2(h) – A.P. (Telangana Area) District Municipalities Act, 1956 – Section 244(1)(c)(iii) – The primary object and the purpose of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, as the long title and the preamble show, is to provide for the imposition of a ceiling on vacant land in urban agglomerations,

  AIR 1979 SC 1415 : (1979) 3 SCC 324 : (1979) 3 SCR 802 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. VALLURI BASAVAIAH…

You missed