{"id":130581,"date":"2017-05-16T10:29:30","date_gmt":"2017-05-16T04:59:30","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=130581"},"modified":"2017-05-16T10:43:24","modified_gmt":"2017-05-16T05:13:24","slug":"2017-scc-vol-4-may-14-2017-part-3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/05\/16\/2017-scc-vol-4-may-14-2017-part-3\/","title":{"rendered":"2017 SCC Vol. 4 May 14, 2017 Part 3"},"content":{"rendered":"

Armed Forces \u2014 Misconduct \u2014 Desertion:<\/strong> Respondent, a Constable in Central Industrial Security Force, intentionally disobeyed the orders of his superiors and deserted the Force for a period of 5 days, such desertion, was an act of gross misconduct. Hence, respondent deserved to be punished suitably but High Court erred in reappreciating the evidence and interfering with the order of disciplinary authority (affirmed by appellate and revisional authorities) whereby respondent was found guilty of the said charge and dismissed from service. However, dismissal modified to compulsory retirement. [Central Industrial Security Force v. Abrar Ali, (2017) 4 SCC 507<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Army Act, 1950 \u2014 S. 20(3) r\/w R. 17, Army Rules, 1954 \u2014 Dismissal \u2014 Sustainability:<\/strong> In this case involving allegations of involvement in fraudulent recruitment were proved against appellant, provisions of Army Act, Rules thereof as well as mandate of natural justice were duly complied with before passing order of dismissal. Hence, no perversity discernible in order of AFT affirming order of dismissal passed by GOC, however, dismissal substituted with discharge. [S. Muthu Kumaran v. Union of India,\u00a0(2017) 4 SCC 609<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 \u2014 Or. 9 Rr. 11 & 13, S. 96 and Or. 41:<\/strong> Dismissal of first appeal by defendants against ex parte decree passed against them, with direction to defendants to file a fresh suit with respect to their claim, not proper. [Ravish v. R. Bharathi,\u00a0(2017) 4 SCC 617<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Constitution of India \u2014 Art. 129 \u2014 Recovery of money illegally collected from public by contemnors:<\/strong> Conditions of interim bail required that contemnors paid instalment amounts at regular intervals fixed by Court and contemnors repeatedly seeking relaxations in payment of instalment amount rejected by Court thus, contemnors making payment of instalments before due dates to avoid being taken back into judicial custody. Attachment of Amby Valley property of contemnors, directed during proceedings dt. 6-2-2017, as it was considered sufficient to realise whole amount due from contemnors. [SEBI v. Sahara India Real Estate Corpn. Ltd.,\u00a0(2017) 4 SCC 595<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Constitution of India \u2014 Arts. 16(4-A), 14 and 335 \u2014 Exercise of power under Art. 16(4-A) \u2014 Parameters for \u2014 Consequential seniority \u2014 When may be provided for:<\/strong> Determination of \u201cinadequacy of representation\u201d, \u201cbackwardness\u201d and \u201coverall efficiency\u201d is mandatory for exercising power under Art. 16(4-A). Mere fact that there is no proportionate representation in promotional posts for reserved category candidates, not by itself sufficient to grant consequential seniority to promotees who are otherwise junior. In absence of the above mandatory exercise prior to exercising power under Art. 16(4-A), \u201ccatch-up\u201d rule fully applies. [B.K. Pavitra v. Union of India,\u00a0(2017) 4 SCC 620<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Constitution of India \u2014 Pt. III \u2014 Breach of fundamental right \u2014 Scope of relief:<\/strong> Limiting relief to only monetary quantification might be done if breach is not capable of being remedied. Law intends nothing impossible but when it is in realm of possibility, denial of relief hurts majesty of justice. [S. Krishna Sradha v. State of A.P.,\u00a0(2017) 4 SCC 516<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Constitution of India \u2014 Sch. VII List III Entry 25 and Arts. 19(1) (g) & (6) and 30 \u2014 \u201cEducation\u201d \u2014 Scope of, in said Entry 25:<\/strong> \u201cEducation\u201d in said Entry 25 includes establishment and administration of educational institution. \u201cAdministration\u201d takes within its sweep regulation of activity of employment by an educational institution irrespective of whether it is established by State, its instrumentalities or private sector (non-State actors). Certain aspects of establishment and administration of colleges by non-State actors have always been regulated by legislature. Both Parliament and State Legislatures can legislate on these aspects. [Mahatama Gandhi Mission v. Bhartiya Kamgar Sena,\u00a0(2017) 4 SCC 449<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Contempt of Court \u2014 Exercise of Contempt Jurisdiction:<\/strong> Grant of relief beyond relief granted in order\/judgment contempt\/non-implementation of which was alleged, not permissible. [Youth Services & Sports Department v. Sanjay Gupta,\u00a0(2017) 4 SCC 571]<\/a><\/p>\n

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 \u2014 Ss. 207\/238 \u2014 Compliance with S. 207 \u2014 Necessity of \u2014 For ensuring fair trial by giving due opportunity to accused to defend himself:<\/strong> In this case of stealing of \u201csource code\u201d of software relating to data recovery in computers, conditional order was passed for providing seized hard discs to accused, to enable him to defend his case but there is apprehension of prosecution that if the documents are supplied at instant stage, appellant may misuse the same. Court observed that it is but obvious that in order to prove his defence, copies of seized CDs need to be supplied to appellant. Right to get such copies is statutorily recognised under S. 207 CrPC, which is the hallmark of a fair trial, that every document relied upon by prosecution has to be supplied to defence\/accused at the time of supply of charge-sheet to enable such accused to demonstrate that no case is made out against him and also to enable him to prepare his cross-examination and defence strategy. In view of opinion of expert, it needs to be ensured, that appellant, when given the cloned copy of hard disk, is not able to erase or change or remove the same. If that can be achieved by putting some safeguards, it would be the ideal situation inasmuch as provisions of S. 207 CrPC, which ensure fair trial by giving due opportunity to the accused to defend himself, shall be fulfilled and apprehension of prosecution would also be taken care of. [Tarun Tyagi v. CBI,\u00a0(2017) 4 SCC 490<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Family and Personal Laws \u2014 Guardians and Wards \u2014 Custody of Child\/Minor:<\/strong> Interim directions issued by Supreme Court for periodical shifting of stay of child with mother during vacations or holidays as child was admitted to a school by father. [Vivek Singh v. Romani Singh,\u00a0(2017) 4 SCC 573<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (34 of 1957) \u2014 Ss. 33(2) proviso (b), 33(1) and 2(1)(e) \u2014 Examination and impounding of instruments not duly stamped:<\/strong> Officer delegated by High Court Judge under proviso (b) to S. 33(2) is only permitted and required to examine whether stamp is of proper amount, bears proper description and is affixed and used according to law, and the stamp duty payable on the same must be determined only with reference to the terms of the instrument. Said Officer\u2019s jurisdiction does not extend to adjudication of nature and character of instrument. Disputed question of nature and character of instrument has to be examined judicially by the competent court according to law. At best delegatee Officer send a report to the court expressing his views on a document which is subject to final determination by the court. Word \u201cexamination\u201d has to be given restricted meaning in consonance with scheme of the Act. [Black Pearl Hotels (P) Ltd. v. Planet M. Retail Ltd.,\u00a0(2017) 4 SCC 498<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Penal Code, 1860 \u2014 S. 302 r\/w S. 34 and Ss. 506, 354 \u2014 Murder trial \u2014 Appeal against acquittal:<\/strong> Reversal of acquittal by High Court, on basis of perverse view taken by trial court which was against the evidence is justified. [M.G. Eshwarappa v. State of Karnataka,\u00a0(2017) 4 SCC 558<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Penal Code, 1860 \u2014 Ss. 304-B, 306, 498-A and 302 r\/w S. 34 \u2014 Murder alleged within 7 yrs of marriage \u2014 Bride found dead in a well:<\/strong> As no marks of any physical injury found on the body of victim, theory that deceased was done to death earlier and thereafter her body was thrown into well, was rightly not accepted by courts below and prosecution also completely failed to prove its case against husband and mother-in-law, hence, High Court rightly upheld their acquittal. [Ananda Bapu Punde v. Balasaheb Anna Koli, (2017) 4 SCC 642<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Penal Code, 1860 \u2014 Ss. 326 and 448 \u2014 Acid attack:<\/strong> Respondent who poured a bottle of acid over victim\u2019s head was convicted by trial court under Ss. 326 and 448 IPC and sentenced to suffer RI for 1 yr with fine of Rs 5000 with default clause under S. 326 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs 1000 under S. 448 IPC with default clause. However, High Court, while maintaining sentence of fine for both offences, modified the sentence of imprisonment under S. 326 IPC to the period already undergone by accused of 30 days. Sentence imposed by High Court set aside and sentence of RI for 1 yr, restored by Supreme Court. [Ravada Sasikala v. State of A.P.,\u00a0(2017) 4 SCC 546<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Prisons, Prisoners and Probation of Offenders \u2014 Parole\/Remission\/Premature release\/Furlough \u2014 Release on parole \u2014 When justified:<\/strong> Parole sought by petitioner to enable him to participate in his mother\u2019s last rites, keeping in view urgency of matter, conditional order directing release of petitioner, on parole, for 20 days, passed. [Parasmal Lodha v. DG of Police,\u00a0(2017) 4 SCC 569<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Service Law \u2014 Appointment \u2014 Eligibility conditions\/criteria:<\/strong> Eligibility should be adjudged with reference to statutory rules and not advertisement inviting applications. [Ranajit Kumar Meher v. State of Orissa,\u00a0(2017) 4 SCC 568<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Service Law \u2014 Promotion \u2014 Criteria\/Eligibility \u2014 Annual confidential report (ACR):<\/strong> Though, ACR forms part of service record which is required to be sent to Selection Committee for consideration, but officer cannot be prejudiced merely because his officers delayed writing it. Further held, prescription for writing ACR as per the Rules concerned was only directory and not mandatory. [P. Sivanandi v. Rajeev Kumar,\u00a0(2017) 4 SCC 579<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Service Law \u2014 Recruitment Process \u2014 Judicial review\/Validity:<\/strong> Selection process initiated despite stay order of competent tribunal\/court, invalid. A competent judicial authority having jurisdiction over the matter having stayed the process of selection, any selection made notwithstanding the continuance of the stay order must not be sustained. Hence, quashment of such selection process, affirmed. [Christopher Nelson v. UPSC,\u00a0(2017) 4 SCC 585<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Service Law \u2014 Reinstatement\/Back Wages\/Arrears \u2014 Arrears \u2014 Entitlement \u2014 Date of reckoning:<\/strong> Respondent-petitioners held entitled to minimum pay scale from date of their appointment and arrears payable for period of three years and two months prior to date of their filing petition in terms of order dt. 1-4-2013 passed by High Court which was implemented by State Government subject to overriding condition that arrears would be payable w.e.f. 1-1-2014. Following dictum by Constitution Bench in Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1<\/a>, held, arrears would be payable from date of impugned judgment i.e. 1-4-2013. [State of Haryana v. Mohinder Singh,\u00a0(2017) 4 SCC 587<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Service Law \u2014 Termination of Service \u2014 Judicial Review\/Interference by Court\/Validity \u2014 Illegal termination:<\/strong> In this case there was regular appointment of respondent on condition that she would claim no right in event V succeeded in case filed by her and V reinstated on 14-7-2003 (respondent relieved on 15-7-2003) and superannuating on 31-8-2004. Termination of services of respondent found to be in violation of principles of natural justice and hence invalid. Where termination is illegal, respondent in normal course would be entitled to reinstatement with all consequential benefits from date of termination order. However, considering respondent\u2019s conditional appointment, she is entitled to reinstatement w.e.f. 1-9-2004 and 50% back wages from then till reinstatement (since she had not worked for that period). [Municipal Council, Nangal v. Aruna Saini,\u00a0(2017) 4 SCC 645<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Service Tax \u2014 Liability to pay tax \u2014 Packaging of goods \u2014 Nonexigibility of, to service tax prior to 16-6-2005 \u2014 \u201cPackaging of goods\u201d and \u201cpackaging of cargo\u201d \u2014 Distinction between, explained:<\/strong> The amendment to the Finance Act, 1994 by insertion of S. 65(76-b) and S. 65(105)(zzz-f)\u00a0with effect from 16-6-2005 making \u201cpackaging activity\u201d exigible to service tax, is sufficiently indicative of legislative intent that packaging activity is different from cargo handling activity. Further, cargo is understood to denote goods which are ready for transportation whereas packaging of goods is a stage prior i.e. before they become cargo. [Signode India Ltd. v. CCE & Customs,\u00a0(2017) 4 SCC 613<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Specific Relief Act, 1963 \u2014 Ss. 9 and 16 \u2014 Suit for specific performance of agreement for sale of immovable property:<\/strong> Preliminary objection regarding non-maintainability of suit on ground of plaintiff\u2019s failure to first seek declaration that termination of agreement by defendant vendor was bad in law as raised for first time in appeal before Supreme Court, cannot be allowed. [A. Kanthamani v. Nasreen Ahmed,\u00a0(2017) 4 SCC 654<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Town Planning \u2014 Demolition and Reconstruction \u2014 Demolition of dilapidated buildings and reconstruction and rehabilitation of occupants\/tenants:<\/strong> As terms of offer of private developer, were found to be better than MHADA, offer of private developer, accepted. [Shankar Hiranna Rajanna v. Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority,\u00a0(2017) 4 SCC 648<\/a>]<\/p>\n

U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904 (1 of 1904) \u2014 S. 24 \u2014 Continuation of a statutory instrument (like government notification involved herein) issued under an enactment repealed and re-enacted:<\/strong> Such statutory instrument (i.e. the notification herein) issued under the repealed enactment continues in force as if it was issued under the re-enacted provisions to the extent that it is not inconsistent with the re-enacted provisions, unless (a) the re-enacted provision expressly provides otherwise, or (b) the said statutory instrument is superseded by a statutory instrument issued under the re-enacted provision. [Harkesh Chand v. Krishan Gopal Mehta,\u00a0(2017) 4 SCC 537<\/a>]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Armed Forces \u2014 Misconduct \u2014 Desertion: Respondent, a Constable in Central Industrial Security Force, intentionally disobeyed the orders of his superiors and <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":91,"featured_media":122321,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5,16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-130581","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casesreported","category-supremecourtcases"],"yoast_head":"\n2017 SCC Vol. 4 May 14, 2017 Part 3 | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/05\/16\/2017-scc-vol-4-may-14-2017-part-3\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"2017 SCC Vol. 4 May 14, 2017 Part 3\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Armed Forces \u2014 Misconduct \u2014 Desertion: Respondent, a Constable in Central Industrial Security Force, intentionally disobeyed the orders of his superiors and\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/05\/16\/2017-scc-vol-4-may-14-2017-part-3\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2017-05-16T04:59:30+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-16T05:13:24+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/weekly-scc-cover-7-4-2017.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Saba\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Saba\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/05\/16\/2017-scc-vol-4-may-14-2017-part-3\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/05\/16\/2017-scc-vol-4-may-14-2017-part-3\/\",\"name\":\"2017 SCC Vol. 4 May 14, 2017 Part 3 | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/05\/16\/2017-scc-vol-4-may-14-2017-part-3\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/05\/16\/2017-scc-vol-4-may-14-2017-part-3\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/weekly-scc-cover-7-4-2017.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2017-05-16T04:59:30+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-16T05:13:24+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/05\/16\/2017-scc-vol-4-may-14-2017-part-3\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/05\/16\/2017-scc-vol-4-may-14-2017-part-3\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/05\/16\/2017-scc-vol-4-may-14-2017-part-3\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/weekly-scc-cover-7-4-2017.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/weekly-scc-cover-7-4-2017.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/05\/16\/2017-scc-vol-4-may-14-2017-part-3\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"2017 SCC Vol. 4 May 14, 2017 Part 3\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785\",\"name\":\"Saba\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a815285315cd85d8b3246c60ed8ed99825949c1b85b370c49212daa54ededa98?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a815285315cd85d8b3246c60ed8ed99825949c1b85b370c49212daa54ededa98?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Saba\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_2\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"2017 SCC Vol. 4 May 14, 2017 Part 3 | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/05\/16\/2017-scc-vol-4-may-14-2017-part-3\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"2017 SCC Vol. 4 May 14, 2017 Part 3","og_description":"Armed Forces \u2014 Misconduct \u2014 Desertion: Respondent, a Constable in Central Industrial Security Force, intentionally disobeyed the orders of his superiors and","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/05\/16\/2017-scc-vol-4-may-14-2017-part-3\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2017-05-16T04:59:30+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-16T05:13:24+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/weekly-scc-cover-7-4-2017.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Saba","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Saba","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/05\/16\/2017-scc-vol-4-may-14-2017-part-3\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/05\/16\/2017-scc-vol-4-may-14-2017-part-3\/","name":"2017 SCC Vol. 4 May 14, 2017 Part 3 | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/05\/16\/2017-scc-vol-4-may-14-2017-part-3\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/05\/16\/2017-scc-vol-4-may-14-2017-part-3\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/weekly-scc-cover-7-4-2017.jpg","datePublished":"2017-05-16T04:59:30+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-16T05:13:24+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/05\/16\/2017-scc-vol-4-may-14-2017-part-3\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/05\/16\/2017-scc-vol-4-may-14-2017-part-3\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/05\/16\/2017-scc-vol-4-may-14-2017-part-3\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/weekly-scc-cover-7-4-2017.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/weekly-scc-cover-7-4-2017.jpg","width":1330,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/05\/16\/2017-scc-vol-4-may-14-2017-part-3\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"2017 SCC Vol. 4 May 14, 2017 Part 3"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785","name":"Saba","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a815285315cd85d8b3246c60ed8ed99825949c1b85b370c49212daa54ededa98?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a815285315cd85d8b3246c60ed8ed99825949c1b85b370c49212daa54ededa98?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Saba"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_2\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/weekly-scc-cover-7-4-2017.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":260232,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/01\/18\/is-dismissal-from-service-per-se-an-unfair-labour-practice-for-being-disproportionate-to-the-misconduct-proved-supreme-court-answers\/","url_meta":{"origin":130581,"position":0},"title":"Is dismissal from service per se an unfair labour practice for being disproportionate to the misconduct proved? Supreme Court answers","author":"Editor","date":"January 18, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: While hearing the appeal filed by Maharashtra SRTC, the Division Bench comprising of M. R. Shah* and B. V. Nagarathna, JJ., held that punishment of dismissal from service per se cannot be said to be an unfair labour practice for being disproportionate to the misconduct proved. Background On\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/Is-dismissal-from-service-per-se-an-unfair-labour-practice-for-being-disproportionate-to-the-misconduct-proved.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/Is-dismissal-from-service-per-se-an-unfair-labour-practice-for-being-disproportionate-to-the-misconduct-proved.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/Is-dismissal-from-service-per-se-an-unfair-labour-practice-for-being-disproportionate-to-the-misconduct-proved.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/Is-dismissal-from-service-per-se-an-unfair-labour-practice-for-being-disproportionate-to-the-misconduct-proved.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/Is-dismissal-from-service-per-se-an-unfair-labour-practice-for-being-disproportionate-to-the-misconduct-proved.png?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":200171,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/16\/forfeiture-of-gratuity-is-not-automatic-on-dismissal-from-service-is-subject-to-section-45-6-of-payment-of-gratuity-act-sc\/","url_meta":{"origin":130581,"position":1},"title":"Forfeiture of gratuity is not automatic on dismissal from service, is subject to Section 4(5) & (6) of Payment of Gratuity Act: SC","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"August 16, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: Kurian Joseph, J. delivered the judgment for himself and Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. wherein it was held that forfeiture of gratuity, under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is not automatic on dismissal from service. The respondent, an employee of the appellant bank, was dismissed on account of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":275122,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/10\/06\/kerala-high-court-section-332b-of-the-industrial-disputes-act-1947-labour-court-discharge-dismissal-unfair-practice-misconduct-natural-justice-legal-research-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":130581,"position":2},"title":"Kerala High Court| Object of an enquiry under S. 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is to lift the veil to find out any hidden motive in punishing the workman","author":"Editor","date":"October 6, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Kerala High Court: In a petition challenging the order dismissing the application filed under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (\u2018the Act\u2019), Mohammed Nias C.P., J. has observed that the respondent has not properly considered the application under Section 33(2)(b) and it is necessary to question\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Kerala High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/kerla_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/kerla_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/kerla_high_court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/kerla_high_court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/kerla_high_court.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":257953,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/01\/not-open-for-courts-to-usurp-function-of-disciplinary-authority-cant-substitute-one-disciplinary-punishment-with-other-sc\/","url_meta":{"origin":130581,"position":3},"title":"Not open for Courts to usurp function of disciplinary authority; Can’t substitute one disciplinary punishment with other: SC","author":"Editor","date":"December 1, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: The Division Bench of Ajay Rastogi* and Abhay S. Oka, JJ., \u00a0\u00a0 set aside the judgment of the Delhi High Court wherein it had substituted the penalty of removal from service with confinement of respondent from 1.00 p.m. to 10.00 p.m. in quarter guard jail without noticing the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":210488,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/02\/21\/kar-hc-unauthorized-absence-from-service-for-a-long-period-of-time-not-a-minor-misconduct-and-is-a-ground-for-dismissal\/","url_meta":{"origin":130581,"position":4},"title":"Kar HC | Unauthorized absence from service for a long period of time not a minor misconduct and is a ground for dismissal","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"February 21, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Karnataka High Court: The Division Bench of L. Narayana Swamy, ACJ and P.S. Dinesh Kumar, J., allowed a writ appeal filed against order directing reinstatement of a driver in service, who had been not reported to duty for almost two years. Respondent herein, who was working as a driver with\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":217682,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/08\/03\/ph-hc-no-fresh-suit-can-be-filed-once-the-issues-have-been-framed-and-the-same-was-not-disputed-by-the-party\/","url_meta":{"origin":130581,"position":5},"title":"P&H HC | No fresh suit can be filed once the issues have been framed and the same was not disputed by the party","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"August 3, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Punjab and Haryana High Court:\u00a0 Deepak Sibal, J. dismissed the present petition as the impugned order was not defective on the ground that framing of the issue was not challenged by the petitioner and evidence were led only on the same ground.\u00a0 A petition was filed against the dismissal order\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/130581","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/91"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=130581"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/130581\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/122321"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=130581"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=130581"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=130581"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}