Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Supreme Court’s full bench declared the judgments in Arup Bhuyan, Indra Das and Raneef to be bad in law. Also, the High Courts Judgments which followed these precedents were overruled
The Supreme Court observed that such matters cannot be resolved by the application of judicial standards and have to be taken up on the administrative side of the Supreme Court.
Group of Companies Doctrine- an Arbitration Agreement entered into by a Company within a group of Companies can bind its non-signatory affiliates, if the circumstances demonstrate that the mutual intention of parties was to bind signatory as well as the non-signatory parties.
“The names which have been recommended earlier in point of time including the reiterated names ought not to be withheld or overlooked as this disturbs their seniority whereas those recommended later steal march on them. Loss of seniority of candidates is a matter of grave concern.”
While granting benefit of doubt to accused, the Supreme Court stated that “Taking into consideration the delay in lodging the FIR, with the circumstance of their names not being mentioned in the contemporaneous documents, the possibility of the said accused being falsely implicated cannot be ruled out.”
No mitigating circumstances of the petitioner were taken into account at any stage of the trial or the appellate process even though the petitioner was sentenced to capital punishment.
Supreme Court said that the object of the Administrative Tribunals Act is to reduce arrears and enable the provision of speedy justice to litigants. Abolishing a State Administrative Tribunal would not frustrate this objective because SATs are not the only method by which the object is capable of being achieved.
Supreme Court said that the civil suit filed at the instance of the respondents for taking possession of the subject land is pending for the last 32 years and has not started its journey yet, this is called the travesty of injustice to a person who is indisputedly the title holder and still unable to enjoy the property.
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.
The Supreme Court proposed that service rules are liable to prevail, and that there can be Government resolutions in consonance and not in conflict with those rules.
Given the existence of the unambiguous provision, Supreme Court held that the services rendered by primary teachers while in the service of the Zilla Parishad deserves to be counted towards their seniority after the transfer and merger of their services into the Pune Municipal Corporation
The case pertains to the resurrection of controversy surrounding the Pune Municipal Corporation and Indore Development Authority judgements of the Supreme Court vis-à-vis Section 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013.
On the pretext of some misgivings in circulation regarding the recently published BCI notification allowing entry of foreign lawyers and law firms in India, BCI clarified the restricted scope for practice.
To make the company viable, the unsecured creditor would have to sacrifice to some extent otherwise the revival efforts would fail, observed the Supreme Court..
The Supreme Court opined that the evidence has to be scrutinized so as to ensure that the totality of the evidence and circumstances relied on, did constitute a complete chain and directly points to the guilt of the convict.
The Supreme Court observed that the Bombay High Court disregarded the nature and gravity of the alleged offence as well as the the financial stature, position and standing of the accused vis-à-vis the prosecutrix.
Apart from the impugned order passed by Kerala High Court in the issue relating to illegal alienation of Church’s immovable properties, the Supreme Court said that the High Court crossed all the boundaries of judicial activism and judicial restraint by passing subsequent orders in the present matter, overawing the other authorities.
Supreme Court said that the cherished principles or golden threads of proof beyond reasonable doubt which runs through the web of our law should not be stretched morbidly which was done by the Courts below.
Supreme Court said that even if development of Khadi and Cottage Industry is a Directive Principle of State Policy, it does not follow as a corollary that if the State establishes a Board or any organisation to carry out the obligations under such DPSP, it cannot make separate arrangements as regards the service conditions of the employees of such a Board or organisation.
The Supreme Court observed that effective relief can be granted to a worker only if the permanent address of the workman is furnished in the pleadings.