Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Retiring after a tenure of 8 months as Chief Justice of MP High Court, Justice Suresh Kumar Kait’s rise from a modest background to higher echelons of the legal world is a perfect example of “where there is a will, there is a way”.
From his leadership roles during his student days to his significant contributions as an advocate and judge, Justice Suresh Kumar Kait’s journey serves as an inspiration for aspiring legal professionals, especially those from humble beginnings.
In nutshell, when the petitioner could not find his place in selection list, he knocked the doors of the Court alleging mala fide at the hands of respondents, which cannot be permitted.
‘NCT of Delhi is giving reservation to one category and denying the same to another, which is sheer discrimination and cannot be permitted.’
A person castigating their employer through a constant tirade of false and scandalous allegations does not deserve to continue in the employment of the said employer.
Despite a delay of three years, not even an Enquiry Officer had been appointed in the department proceedings against Gurjinder Pal Singh.
It is the bounden duty of the employer to be sensitive and responsive to the physical difficulties that a working lady would face in performing her duties at the workplace while carrying a baby or bringing up the child post birth.
The Court finds that the respondent is possessed with necessary educational qualifications and thus fulfils the requisite condition of being appointed as a ‘Teacher’.
The Court was of the view that the only test in such extraordinary situations must be as to whether the medical treatment is actually availed of. Once the answer is in affirmative, the reimbursement must be full while dealing with such cases pertaining to COVID pandemic.
The timeline was stipulated by the Delhi High Court in a previous judgment for the issuance of identity cards to the law researchers being treated as bona fide advocates.
The Delhi High Court refrained from taking any coercive action against advocate for contempt of Court in view of his medical condition.
The Delhi High Court says that being a government employee, the appellant cannot be permitted to be free by merely contending that the accounts, though in his name, were being managed by the co-accused.
‘Victim would have thought that she would find monastery in the lap of her father, instead, he turned out to be a monster.’