Supreme Court was hearing a matter pertaining to judicial infrastructure and AAP’s alleged encroachment of land allotted to Delhi High Court.
Supreme Court clarified that the legal position of a distributor and agent was not similar, for a distributor is an independent contractor, not being a communicator between principal and the third party unlike an agent, free from control of his employer.
In P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE), (1998) 4 SCC 626, the 5-Jugdge Bench held that the MPs and MLAs enjoyed immunity if they cast vote in the House after taking bribe for it.
Supreme Court added that if the payment of Rs.10 crores along with interest as directed, is not refunded within six months from the date of this order, SECI will be entitled to recover Rs. 10 crores plus interest as per the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003.
“A person claiming adverse possession should show, as to on what date he got the possession; the nature of his possession; whether the factum of possession was known to the other party; how long his possession has continued; and that his possession was open and undisturbed.”
Rule 24(4) of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 provides that “no candidate shall be eligible for appointment to the service who has more than two children on or after 01-06-2002”.
The Supreme Court of India delivered some important judgments in the month of February, like striking down the electoral bonds scheme, declaring Kuldeep Kumar as Mayor for Chandigarh Municipal Corporation, and more as covered in the monthly roundup.
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1952 on presumption of marriage.
Supreme Court said that once the parties committed themselves to a written contract, whereby they reduced the terms and conditions agreed upon by them to writing, the same would be binding upon them.
Supreme Court directed the accused to report to the local Police Station twice in a month, and directed his passport to be deposited with the Investigating Officer /with the Court concerned
Supreme Court said that if a proportional increase in the vacancies is required to be created to accommodate the petitioner, then this should be carried out without creating any precedent for the future.
The District Collectors of several Districts of Tamil Nadu were summoned by the Directorate of Enforcement for various offences under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, including some of them being scheduled offences.
Supreme Court commented that “the criminal justice system of ours can itself be a punishment” as happened in the instant matter which started in 1993 and came to an end in 2024, after 30 years of suffering.
Justice Abhay S. Oka wrote the majority judgment, which was concurred by Justice Mithal through a separate judgment.
by Vasanth Rajasekaran* and Harshvardhan Korada**
In 2018, the National Company Law Tribunal approved the resolution plan submitted for Amtek Auto by Liberty House, which was settled with 80% haircut for Deccan Value Investors in November 2021
“Broad brushing every non-disclosure of criminal case as a disqualification from the recruitment will be unjust.”
Supreme Court highlighted that the provision for filing curative petitions was incorporated in Order XLVIII of the 2013 Rules.
Supreme Court had previously slammed Patanjali Ayurved for misleading ads against modern medicine.
In 2023, Madras High Court had held that the mosque was illegally constructed without any building sanction plan.