Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court observed that the Patna High Court ought to have called upon the Bihar State Pharmacy Council to file the status report on the allegations of fake pharmacist and/or on how many Governments’ hospitals/hospitals in the State are running without registered pharmacist.

Continue reading
Case BriefsSupreme Court

On 10.02.2020, a division bench had come to the conclusion that the view taken by this Court in Preetam Singh’s case needs reconsideration after it prima facie found that the functions of the Board contemplated under Section 15 of the 1965 Act were wide enough even to cover the act of fixing service conditions of its employees. Hence, the matter was referred to a larger bench.

Continue reading
Case BriefsSupreme Court

The Electricity Act, 2003 does not prescribe one dominant method to determine tariff as it seeks to distance the State Governments from the determination and regulation of tariff, placing such power completely within the ambit of the Appropriate Commissions.

Continue reading
Case BriefsSupreme Court

“A casual or cavalier approach while recording as to whether an accused is a juvenile or not cannot be permitted as the courts are enjoined upon to perform their duties with the object of protecting the confidence of a common man in the institution entrusted with the administration of justice.”

Continue reading
Know thy Judge

Changing the face of the District Judiciary, institutionalising processes like listing of matters and E-filing in the Supreme Court, elevation of members of the Bar to High Courts and filling up of judicial vacancies, would be some of the key focus areas of Dr Justice DY Chandrachud as the 50th Chief Justice of India.

Continue reading
Case BriefsSupreme Court

“The prosecution has to bring home the charges levelled against them beyond reasonable doubt, which the prosecution has failed to do in the instant case, resultantly, the Court is left with no alternative but to acquit the accused, though involved in a very heinous crime.”

Continue reading
Case BriefsSupreme CourtSupreme Court (Constitution/Larger Benches)

While Dinesh Maheshwari, Bela M Trivedi and JB Pardiwala, JJ wrote separate but concurrent opinions forming majority, S. Ravindra Bhat, J wrote the minority opinion for himself and U.U. Lalit, CJ.

Continue reading
Case BriefsSupreme CourtSupreme Court (Constitution/Larger Benches)

While Dinesh Maheshwari, Bela M Trivedi and JB Pardiwala, JJ wrote separate but concurrent opinions forming majority, S. Ravindra Bhat, J wrote the minority opinion for himself and U.U. Lalit, CJ.

Continue reading
Case BriefsSupreme Court

The requirement of the members to contribute at the rate of 1.16 per cent of their salary to the extent such salary exceeds Rs.15000/- per month as an additional contribution under the amended scheme has, however, been held to be ultra vires the provisions of the 1952 Act. The Court has given 6 months’ breather to the authorities make adjustments in the scheme.

Continue reading