Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“The Authority under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 cannot adjudicate on the merits of the finding in the domestic enquiry or on the penalty, as it has no jurisdiction to adjudicate on the merits of the findings in a domestic enquiry. Those questions have to be adjudicated in a subsequent industrial dispute, if raised.”
“On one side is judicial propriety and on the other, severe contempt. Yet this Commission will take this risk and make attempt to set legal principles clearly for the purposes of upholding judicial federalism”.
The appointment of the petitioner to the 2008 Civil Services, based on the subsequent legislative reform made in 2016, would lead to administrative chaos and raise several complications regarding seniority, induction etc.
by Namita Shetty* and Bharat Harne**
“Merely because such transferee pendente lite does not come on record, the concept of him (transferee pendente lite) not being bound by the judgment does not arise and consequently he would be bound by the result of the litigation, though he remains unrepresented”.
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment on res judicata, dating back to the year 1954.
This report summarizes the insights from the Keynote Address delivered by Professor George A. Bermann at the ICDR India Conference.
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment, on judicial precedents and res judicata, dating back to the year 1954.
Constitution of India — Arts. 141 and 142 — What is binding — “Law declared by Supreme Court” — Doctrine of merger
“Taxation serves as the cornerstone of governmental revenue, facilitating the provision of public services and infrastructure. Essential to this system is consistency, ensuring that similar factual and legal circumstances are met with uniform treatment.”
Calcutta High Court noted that the mere dismissal of the first suit does not automatically render the second suit barred by res judicata.
Although the instant matter was remanded back to NCDRC to decide on facts, the Supreme Court very well elaborated the cause of action, Doctrine of Merger, principle of Res Judicata and Precedents.
In the peculiar facts of the present case, taking recourse to law, cannot be, by any stretch of imagination, labeled as an instance of cruelty.
The Supreme Court called the matter at hand a classic case in which a litigant had been able to mislead the Courts and authorities at different levels to put life into his stale claim.
If plaint filed in different courts are read juxtaposing each other it cannot be concluded that similar and identical issues are involved in both the cases.
The Supreme Court said that before examining the defendants’ ground of res judicata to oppose the eviction petition, several aspects may have to be looked into, like whether such an issue was substantively at issue in the previous suit and similar such other questions may crop up.
The Delhi High Court upheld Single judge’s decision to set aside ICC Award of $562.5 million in favour of Devas Multimedia (P) Ltd. for a failed satellite agreement with Antrix Corporation Ltd., on the grounds of fraud and being in conflict with the public policy of India.
Delhi High Court was of the view that it would be within its right to dismiss the petition at the threshold if the petition is not maintainable, otherwise an unacceptable position of law would arise where despite a petition being not maintainable due to lack of territorial jurisdiction would need to be entertained.
Chhattisgarh High Court: In an appeal against the decision of Trial Court of dismissing the suit mainly on the ground that the