Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
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 five Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has upheld the Governor’s decision of inviting Eknath Shinde to form the Government in the State of Maharashtra and has refused to quash Udhav Thackeray’s resignation as it was submitted voluntarily before the floor test. This Explainer not just provides a Bird’s-Eye view of the Supreme Court Judgment for easy reference but also gives a detailed point-wise breakdown of each issue.
Justice Dinesh Maheshwari who is serving as a Judge of the Supreme Court of India, retires today after an extensive career of 4 years. Prior to his appointment to the Supreme Court, he had served as the Chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka and the Chief Justice of the High Court of Meghalaya.
by Ila Kapoor† and Mrinali Komandur††
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 42
Supreme Court said that NCTD like other states also represents the representative form of government, the involvement of Union of India in the administration of NCTD is limited by Constitution provisions and any further expansion will be contrary to the constitutional scheme of governance.
Supreme Court observed that in cases where the marital relationship has broken down irretrievably, where there is a long separation and absence of cohabitation, then continuation of such a ‘marriage' would only mean giving sanction to cruelty which each is inflicting on the other.
The Court expressed its concerns over the loss of human life and destruction of the homesteads and places of worship.
The Supreme Court did not find any place for a ‘deemed appointment' and held that the selection process concludes only after the mandatory approval of the DIOS is granted.
Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether a settlement remedy under Section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962, would be available for the seized goods, which are specified under Section 123 of the said Act, the bench of Krishna Murari and Sanjay Karol, JJ gave a spilt verdict and referred the matter to a larger bench.
Supreme Court stayed the operation of the Allahabad High Court's judgment to the extent it directs refund of the fee paid to ex-students, till the next date of hearing.
The Court said that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and the case did not pass the standard required in a case of circumstantial evidence.
Supreme Court said that the State Government may examine the data of last few years, to come to a realistic finding as to what should be the extent of these reservations. A wholesale reservation is not serving any purpose, rather it frustrates the very purpose of the reservation
The Court said that to avail exemption benefits, two conditions were to be fulfilled, one, – that the exports made under the Advance Authorizations, were physical exports in nature, and the other, that there must be fulfillment of ‘pre-import condition’.
Supreme Court observed that if the interpretation that once an auditor resigns, the proceedings under Section 140(5) stand terminated and are no longer further required to be proceeded, an auditor may resign to avoid Tribunal’s final order and its consequence as provided under the second proviso to Section 140(5).
Supreme Court went into the depths of Chapter 12 of Code of Criminal Procedure regarding a complaint case before Magistrate and the case laws around them.
Supreme Court said that the distinction between obiter dicta and ratio decidendi in a judgment, as a proposition of law, has been examined by its several judgments.
Supreme Court said that there was no fault on the part of the appellants. It was because of the wrong marking at the relevant time that they were deprived of the appointments, and they were not placed in the merit list, and such was required to be corrected on the revision of the marks on re-evaluation.
DMK MP Kanimozhi Karunanidhi’s election was challenged on the ground that she had intentionally supressed the information about the payment of income tax of her spouse.
The Supreme Court also directed the competent authority to deal with the mercy petition later and take further decision as and when deemed necessary.
The Supreme Court said that the State can permit the Development Authorities to levy only those development charges which are mentioned in the Section 15(2-A) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.