Does State Employer has the choice on who should enter its service? Supreme Court decides
Supreme Court: The Bench of K.M. Joseph and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ. while addressing the matter, observed that, Public service – like
Supreme Court: The Bench of K.M. Joseph and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ. while addressing the matter, observed that, Public service – like
Supreme Court: A Division Bench of L. Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose, JJ., quashed the notification dated 17-8-2016 issued by State Government
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of L. Nageswara Rao and B. R. Gavai, JJ., directed the Madhya Pradesh High Court to immediately
Delhi High Court: C. Hari Shankar, J. observed that, The question of whether, once a bench of the Supreme Court has doubted
Supreme Court: Taking a significant step towards gender equality, the Division Bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ., issued interim
Supreme Court: A Division Bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. has held that if the Investigating Officer does not
Supreme Court: A Division Bench of Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. reversed concurrent judgments of the trial court and the Madhya
Supreme Court Collegium Supreme Court Collegium has approved the proposal for the appointment of Shri Justice Kausik Chanda, Additional Judge of the
Supreme Court Collegium has approved the proposal for the appointment of following Additional Judges of the Karnataka High Court as Permanent Judges
Collegium Statement Supreme Court Collegium has recommended elevation of the following Chief Justices / Judges of the High Courts and a Bar
Supreme Court: Opining that empowerment of the consumers is the legislative intent behind the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and the ground reality
Supreme Court: Bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ., expressed that, Key characteristic of thumb impression is that every person
Supreme Court: A Division Bench of S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari, JJ. held that there is a distinction between overruling a
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari, JJ., addressed a pertinent issue of whether the rent act
Supreme Court: A Division Bench comprising of Navin Sinha and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ. held that the period of limitation for filing
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of Hemant Gupta and A.S. Bopanna, JJ., addressed whether the 2010 amendment of Payment of Gratuity Act
Supreme Court: A Division Bench comprising of Hemant Gupta and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. reversed the conviction of the accussed−appellant who was convicted
“Displaced persons cannot occupy government accommodation.”
“The nation continues to wait, and is losing patience. Cleansing the polluted stream of politics is obviously not one of the immediate
by Sucheta Sarkar†