Constitution of India — Arts. 14, 15 and 16 — Reservation — Sub-classification: T.N. Special Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions including
Supreme Court held that the Punjab and Haryana High Court was not right in setting aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court and restoring the judgment of the Trial Court, granting the respondent compassionate appointment in Bank of Baroda.
The Supreme Court set aside the Karnataka High Court verdict wherein it was held that the State failed in its obligation to inform the respondent about the existence of the vacancy that has arisen.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — S. 29-A (as amended w.e.f. 30-8-2019) — Time-limit for making award: Time-limit stipulated in this section,
“The principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be invoked or applied invariably in every kind of service and certainly it cannot be invoked in the area of professional services when these are to be compensated”
The Gujarat Government had issued the impugned Notification dated 18.04.2023 during the pendency of the present writ petition and after receiving the notice issued by the Court. The Supreme Court observed that the State Government could have waited till the next date of hearing which was on 28.04.2023.
The Supreme Court observed that having participated in the selection process without any demur or protest, the writ petitioners cannot challenge the same as being tainted with mala fides, merely because they were unsuccessful.
Supreme Court said that the denial of promotion was on the ground that candidates do not possess the prescribed requisite qualification namely “Diploma in Civil Engineering”, and not because they possess a two-year diploma not three-year diploma.
This roundup revisits the analyses of Supreme Court’s judgments/orders on validity of AIBE; ex-communication of Dawoodi Bohras; decriminalisation of adultery; permissibility of DNA test of children to prove allegations of adultery; and more. It also covers reports on the career trajectory & important decisions of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Dutta and the newly appointed 7 judges of the Supreme Court; Explainers on important law points; and Cases Reported in SCC Weekly in the month of February.
Supreme Court held that the Telangana High Court erred in setting aside the demand notice for the period after October 1989 and that the amended Section 1(6) was applied retrospectively. It was of the view that only in the case of demand notice for the period prior to inserting Section 1(6) of the ESI Act, it could be said that the same provision has been applied retrospectively.
The Court was deciding the case where the ex-employees of Maharashtra State Financial Corporation had challenged decision denying the benefit of revision of pay scales, as recommended by the Fifth Pay Commission, to the employees who had retired or died during the period of 01.01.2006 to 29.03.2010.
This roundup revisits the analyses of Supreme Court’s judgments/orders on constitutionality of Demonetisation; Freedom of Speech of Ministers; Guidelines to withhold life support of a terminally ill patients; Tussle between Delhi Government and Centre, and more. It also covers reports on Justice SA Nazeer’s retirement; the career trajectory & important decision of Justice CT Ravikumar; Explainers on important law points; five ‘Did You Know’ facts; Cases Reported in SCC Weekly in the month of January; and a throwback from SCC Archives.
The bench of KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna, JJ has held that the definition of ‘family' under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 is a restrictive and specific one and cannot be expanded to take within its sweep, all heirs, as provided under Hindu law, or other personal laws.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Ss. 437 to 439 — Bail applications: If more than one bail application is filed
“The approach of the High Court is like a visually impaired person looking for a black cat in a dark room when the cat itself is not there.”, observed the Supreme Court.
The petitioner, being a highly intelligent and educated person and a medical officer at that, is expected to exhibit prudence, discipline and common sense in his attitude to life and work.
This roundup revisits the analyses of Supreme Court’s judgments/orders on constitutionality of EWS Quota and dissent; Juvenility of Kathua gangrape-murder accused; acquittal of all Chhawla gangrape-murder accused; why Rajiv Gandhi assassination convicts were set free, and more. It also covers reports on Justice Chandrachud’s appointment as the 50th CJI and his to-do-list; CJI UU Lalit’s retirement; explainers on important law points; some Never Reported Judgments; and career trajectory and important decision of Justice BR Gavai.
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.
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.
Supreme Court: In a case where a member of the Indian Forest Services (IFS) had alleged that his junior was promoted to the post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests while his candidature was kept in