ive
India Law Library (Website) is free for India Law Library Offline customers only, Please Don't Pay for this website.

User not Logged..
IP Address :44.201.96.43
Latest Cases

(201) P. RANJITHARAJ Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 25-04-2022
Service Law- Appointment - When those who are lower in order of merit to the appellants were appointed by an order, the appellants have no right of say in the matter of appointment and no justification has been tendered by the State respondent as to why their names were withheld for two/three years, when their names were cleared by the Commission on 3rd September, 2002 and sent to the State Government and finally appointments were made of the appellants on 23rd August, 2005 and 23rd April, 2004

(202) M/S INVENT ASSET SECURITISATION AND RECONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. M/S GIRNAR FIBRES LIMITED [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 25-04-2022
Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the material placed on record, we are satisfied that the National Company Law Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh and thereafter, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi have rightly taken the view that the application as moved by the present appellant under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘the Code’) was barred by limitation.

(203) SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Vs. R.T. AGRO PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 25-04-2022
Having heard learned counsel for the appellant-Securities and Exchange Board of India ('SEBI') and having perused the material placed on record, we find absolutely no reason to entertain this appeal.

(204) TALEMA ELECTRONIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. REGIONAL DIRECTOR, ESI CORPORATION AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 25-04-2022
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 30th March, 2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in CM.A.No.643/2020 by which the High court has allowed the said appeal preferred by the respondent-ESI Corporation and has set aside the order passed by the ESI Court dated 1st August, 2017 in ESIOP No.3 of 2007, by which the ESI Court held that the "conveyance allowance" paid to the employees by the appellant herein does not include the wages, the empl

(205) THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. 63 MOONS TECHNOLOGIES LTD. [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 22-04-2022
Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 - Section 2(c) - Deposit - If the financial establishment is obligated to return the deposit without any increments, it shall still fall within the purview of Section 2(c) of the MPID Act, provided that the deposit does not fall within any of the exceptions - Statutory definition of the expression "deposit" comprises of the following ingredients:

(206) RAM CHANDER Vs. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 22-04-2022
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 432 - Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Section 302 read with Section 149 - Murder - Remission of sentence - Court has the power to review the decision of the government regarding the acceptance or rejection of an application for remission under Section 432 of the CrPC to determine whether the decision is arbitrary in nature - Court can review the decision of the government to determine whether it was arbitrary, it cannot usurp the power of the government an

(207) ALLAHABAD BANK AND OTHERS Vs. AVTAR BHUSHAN BHARTIYA [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 22-04-2022
Labour Law - In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the normal rule - The aforesaid rule is subject to the rider that while deciding the issue of back wages, the adjudicating authority or the Court may take into consideration the length of service of the employee/workman, the nature of misconduct, if any, found proved against the employee/workman, the financial condition of the employer and similar other factors - Ordinarily, an em

(208) ANUJ SINGH @ RAMANUJ SINGH @SETH SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 22-04-2022
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Section 324 - Arms Act, 1959 - Section 27 - Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons - Conviction and sentence - When a person commits an offence of voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons and means under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code, then such person shall be punished with imprisonment for a period of three years, or with fine - Charge of Section 324 IPC stands established against the two appellants - Once the charge against the appellants under Section 3

(209) IMRAN Vs. MR. MOHAMMED BHAVA AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 22-04-2022
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 307, 302 and 395 - Murder - Cancellation of bail - While considering cancellation of bail already granted by a lower court, would indeed require significant scrutiny at the instance of superior court, however, bail when granted can always be revoked if the relevant material on record, gravity of the offence or its societal impact have not been considered by the lower court

(210) JAFARUDHEEN AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF KERALA [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 22-04-2022
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 159 and 161 - Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Sections 120-B, 143, 147, 148, 427, 460, 302 read with 149 - Explosive Substances Act, 1908 - Sections 3 and 5 - Murder - Delay in sending First Information Report to Jurisdictional Magistrate and Delay in Recording the Statement - First information report in a criminal case starts the process of investigation by letting the criminal law into motion. It is certainly a vital and valuable aspect of evidence to corrobor

(211) THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS ETC. Vs. UDAY EDUCATION AND WELFARE TRUST AND ANOTHER ETC. [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 22-04-2022
Environmental law - Tribunal directed the State to not proceed with the proposal for establishment of new wood-based industries till an assessment of the actual availability of timber was done - Not convinced that the judgment of the Tribunal needs to be stayed - In agreement with the Tribunal that data has to be collected by the State before permitting new wood-based industries - Of course, this view is subject to a decision to be taken after hearing the parties in detail at a later stage. The

(212) HARSHIT FOUNDATION SEHMALPUR JALALPUR JAUNPUR Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX FAIZABAD [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 22-04-2022
The only question which is posed for consideration before the High Court was whether on non-deciding the application for registration under Section 12AA (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') within a period of six months, there shall be deemed registration or not.

(213) DEVENDER SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 21-04-2022
Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 113B - Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Section 498A, 304B and 120B - Dowry death - Presumption - Section 304B IPC read along with Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 makes it clear that once the prosecution has succeeded in demonstrating that a woman has been subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry soon after her death, a presumption shall be drawn against the said persons that they have caused dowry death as contemplated

(214) MANISH GUPTA AND ANOTHER ETC. ETC. Vs. PRESIDENT, JAN BHAGIDARI SAMITI AND OTHERS. ETC. ETC. [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 21-04-2022
Service Law - Ad hoc employee - An ad hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc employee and he can be replaced only by another candidate who is regularly appointed by following a regular procedure prescribed.

(215) M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. Vs. SHRI RAJENDRA D. HARMALKAR [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 21-04-2022
Service Law - Dismissal - Employee had secured his job as Re­fueling Helper by submitting a false and forged Secondary School Leaving Certificate - Unless and until it is found that the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is shockingly disproportionate and/or there is procedural irregularity in conducting the inquiry, the High Court would not be justified in interfering with the order of punishment.

(216) VISHRAM VARU AND COMPANY Vs. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY, KOLKATA [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 21-04-2022
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 11(6) - Appointment of an arbitrator - Merely because for the claim/alleged dues of 1985/1986, the legal notice calling upon the respondent to pay the amount due and payable or to refer the dispute to the arbitrator is made after a period of approximately thirty-two years, the appellant cannot be permitted to say that the cause of action to file the application under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act had accrued in the year 2018/2019 - High Court has

(217) DR. JACOB THUDIPARA Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 21-04-2022
Service Law - Teacher is entitled to get the benefits of enhanced age of superannuation of 65 years at par with his counterpart teachers serving in Government Colleges and Universities - Teacher shall be entitled to all consequential and monetary benefits including the arrears of salaries and allowances for the intervening period, as if he would have been retired at the age of 65 years.

(218) DALPAT SINGH NARUKA AND ANOTHER Vs. KARUNA BANSAL AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 21-04-2022
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 9 and 37 - Interim measures - Passing impugned orders, the High Court has acted in excess of the limited jurisdiction vested in it under Section 37 of the 1996 Act - Scope of the appeal preferred by the respondents under Section 37 of the 1996 Act ought to be confined to examining the merits of the order passed by the Commercial Court that has refused to grant any interim measures in favour of the respondents on the application moved by them unde

(219) BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA Vs. TWINKLE RAHUL MANGAONKAR AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 21-04-2022
The Bar Council of India (BCI) has filed the status report dated 11.04.2022 and we have the benefit of the additional note filed by Mr. K.V. Viswanathan, learned Amicus Curiae. Taking into consideration the order passed on 15.03.2022 which has resulted in the aforesaid being filed, we consider it appropriate to take the matter forward in the following terms :

(220) ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY Vs. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, SSB AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 20-04-2022
Service Law - Disciplinary proceedings - Question of quantum of punishment in disciplinary matters is primarily for the disciplinary authority and the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution or of the Administrative Tribunals is limited and is confined to the applicability of one or other of the well-known principles known as 'Wednesbury principles'.

IP Address :44.201.96.43