{"id":198536,"date":"2018-07-16T12:37:51","date_gmt":"2018-07-16T07:07:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=198536"},"modified":"2018-07-16T12:37:51","modified_gmt":"2018-07-16T07:07:51","slug":"2018-scc-vol-6-july-14-2018-part-1","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/07\/16\/2018-scc-vol-6-july-14-2018-part-1\/","title":{"rendered":"2018 SCC Vol. 6 July 14, 2018 Part 1"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Constitution of India \u2014 Art. 14 \u2014 Invidious discrimination:<\/strong> Entitlement of former CMs of State of U.P. for allotment of government accommodation for their lifetime in terms of S. 4(3) of U.P. Ministers (Salaries, Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1981 (as amended by U.P. Act 22 of 2016), violates doctrine of equality and is ultra vires the Constitution. Natural resources, public lands and public goods like government bungalows\/official residence are public property and \u201cDoctrine of Equality\u201d which emerges from concepts of justice, fairness must guide State in distribution\/allocation of same. Chief Minister, once he demits office is on a par with common citizen, though by virtue of office held, he\/she may be entitled to security and other protocols. S. 4(3) of 1981 Act which creates a separate class of citizens for conferment of benefit by way of distribution of public property on basis of previous public office held by them, fails test of reasonable classification violating Art. 14 and is ultra vires the Constitution. Furthremore, U.P. Ex-Chief Ministers Residence Allotment Rules, 1997 were struck down by Supreme Court in <em>Lok Prahari<\/em>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/112j3En2\">(2016) 8 SCC 389<\/a> on ground that provision for accommodation for ex-CMs as made in the Rules was in direct conflict with S. 4 of 1981 Act. Insertion of S. 4(3), as substantive provision in statute, which sought to bring in same effect as 1997 Rules without curing defect as pointed out, is an invalid attempt to overreach judgment in Lok Prahari case. [Lok Prahari v. State of U.P., <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/0pEB13vz\">(2018) 6 SCC 1<\/a>]<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Constitution of India \u2014 Art. 226 \u2014 Maintainability of writ petition:<\/strong> In this case, second writ petition was filed after disposal of earlier one as withdrawn. Earlier petition was withdrawn only on account of pendency of appeal. Second writ petition challenging subsequent order passed in appeal, hence held, was maintainable. [Vinod v. District Selection Committee, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/9bbFLoRP\">(2018) 6 SCC 68<\/a>]<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Constitution of India \u2014 Art. 32 \u2014 Misuse of PIL \u2014 Casting aspersions on District Judiciary, High Court Judges, misrepresentation of facts, baseless allegations:<\/strong> In a case death of Special Judge conducting alleged Fake Encounter Death case (Sohrabuddin case), there was non-registration of FIR as inquest report and other materials indicated natural death. Discreet inquiry conducted by Commissioner, State Intelligence Department (SID) also concluding similarly. No complaint was lodged by any relative of said Special Judge in local police station about any suspicion regarding cause of death. Prayer for registration of FIR and court monitored investigation rejected. [Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/e732Y4Ig\">(2018) 6 SCC 72<\/a>]<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Constitution of India \u2014 Arts. 226 and 32 \u2014 Scope of issuance of writ of quo warranto \u2014 Principles reiterated:<\/strong> As long as caste and income certificate is valid and in force, a writ of quo warranto cannot be issued on basis of assumptions, inferences and suspicions regarding fact of fulfilment of eligibility criteria. [Bharati Reddy v. State of Karnataka, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/4XrYB3gN\">(2018) 6 SCC 162<\/a>]<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Contract and Specific Relief \u2014 Performance of Contract \u2014 Time of Performance \u2014 Time of the Essence \u2014 Termination\/Discharge\/Compensation\/Penalty for delayed performance:<\/strong> Government entered into power purchase agreement (PPA) with respondent contractor (successful bidder). Respondent got a term loan of Rs 267.37 crores and spent huge amounts to purchase 253 acres of land. Respondent completed project after a delay of only 16 days (claimed by respondent) disputed by appellant authorities. As per appellants 16 days\u2019 delay was beyond extra time of 9 months permissible under PPA. Delay was due to resistance faced by project team like physical attacks at allotted site during land procurement. Said circumstance of delay though not force majeure, are unavoidable circumstances. In case of delay, Arts. 2.5 and 2.6 of agreement provide for penalty. By interim order, High Court direction for encashment of bank guarantee had been stayed subject to condition of restitution depending on outcome of case. Penalty of stated amount directed to be paid. Termination of contract, not proper. [M.P. Power Management Co. Ltd. v. Renew Clean Energy (P) Ltd., <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/yJrm7b8z\">(2018) 6 SCC 157<\/a>]<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 \u2014 Ss. 340 and 195(1)(b)(i) \u2014 Perjury:<\/strong> As case of deliberate falsehood, not made out, initiation of prosecution for perjury in such case, not justified. Proceedings initiated under S. 340 CrPC r\/w S. 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC, closed. [Chintamani Malviya v. High Court of M.P., <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/EmqSc5AL\">(2018) 6 SCC 151<\/a>]<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Electricity Act, 2003 \u2014 Ss. 84(1) &amp; (2) and Ss. 77, 85(2), (3), (5) &amp; (6), 86(1)(f), 86, 112 and 113 and Statement of Objects and Reasons \u2014 State Electricity Commission:<\/strong> It is not mandatory that Chairman of State Commission should be a Judge but it is mandatory that there should be at least one person of law as a Member of the Commission, which requires a person, who is, or has been holding a judicial office or is a person possessing professional qualifications with substantial experience in the practice of law, who has the requisite qualifications to have been appointed as a Judge of the High Court or a District Judge. Consequential directions issued, but to apply prospectively. [State of Gujarat v. Utility Users\u2019 Welfare Assn., <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/KfGGr0wL\">(2018) 6 SCC 21<\/a>]<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Income Tax \u2014 Income:<\/strong> Amount received by assessee acting as a broker of Bank in trust, to be paid to certain parties on behalf of Bank, not income in the hands of assessee and not taxable. [CIT v. T. Jayachandran, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/V3Fjcyn3\">(2018) 6 SCC 189<\/a>]<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Income Tax \u2014 Non-Residents\/Offshore transactions \u2014 Permanent establishment (PE) in India \u2014 Relevance of \u2014 Arm\u2019s length pricing i.e. where a non-resident compensates a Permanent Establishment (PE) at arm\u2019s length price \u2014 Effect of:<\/strong> In this case, following the ruling in E-Funds IT Solution Inc., (2018) 13 SCC 294, held, once arm\u2019s length price procedure has been followed, notice for the reassessment based only on the allegation that the appellant(s) has permanent establishment in India, cannot be sustained. [Honda Motor Co. Ltd. v. CIT, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/e04NMlRm\">(2018) 6 SCC 70<\/a>]<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 \u2014 S. 9-A r\/w Sch. IV Cl. 8 \u2014 Notice of change in any material terms of service to employee \u2014 Principles of Natural Justice \u2014 Compliance:<\/strong> Temporary decision to enhance age of superannuation of all Central Public Sector employees from 58 yrs to 60 yrs vide order dt. 19-11-1998 with a view to cut down losses, revoked vide order dt. 17-7-2002 and age of superannuation at 58 yrs restored without granting opportunity of hearing to employees, said order dt. 17-7-2002 was not sustainable. [Paradeep Phosphates Ltd. v. State Of Orissa, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/4FWm6Jci\">(2018) 6 SCC 195<\/a>]<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Labour Law \u2014 Workman:<\/strong> Employees working in canteen managed by a another party\/contractor, providing canteen services to employees of establishment concerned, are entitled to be treated as employees of appellant with all attendant and monetary benefits on a par with regular employees. [Chennai Port Trust v. Industrial Employees Canteen Workers Welfare Assn.,<a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/C85pVU7B\"> (2018) 6 SCC 202<\/a>]<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Transfer of Property Act, 1882 \u2014 Ss. 54, 7 and 8 \u2014 Sale of remaindermen\u2019s interest during lifetime of holders of life estate:<\/strong> On partition between two brothers, certain properties including property in question coming to share of one I. On subsequent partition executed insofar as branch of I was concerned, the properties were equally divided among four sons of I. Having given \u00bcth share to each son, right of enjoyment of properties was retained by I and his wife M till their lifetime. In 1975, two sons of I i.e. K and S transferred their undivided share in property in question by executing registered sale deeds in favour of appellant herein. I and M died in 1975 and 1984 respectively. On basis of above sale deeds executed by K and S, appellant (in 1985) filed a civil suit seeking declaration that he was entitled to undivided half-share in property in question. Though K did not have any son, S had four sons, who were not made parties to above suit. Appellant later filed another suit seeking injunction against defendants named therein. In that suit, the four sons of S were added as parties. Trial court decreed former suit holding appellant to be entitled to one half-share in suit property and accordingly passed a preliminary decree in that behalf. However, it declining to grant any relief of permanent injunction against defendants, but, first appellate court held that since the four sons of S were not parties to suit for declaration and partition, insofar as branch of S was concerned, sale deed in favour of appellant would be valid only in respect of share of S. Thus, first appellate court held that appellant would be entitled to share of S in his branch (i.e. 1\/4 \u00d7 1\/6 = 1\/24) and share of K. Resultantly, share of appellant was computed as 5\/24. View taken by first appellate court was confirmed by High Court in second appeals. After going through the entirety of matter and relevant record, the Supreme Court held that assessment made by first appellate court and High Court, insofar as merits of matter was concerned, was proper and hence, no interference was called for. [A. Dharmalingam v. V. Lalithambal, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/0Pqo3KcK\">(2018) 6 SCC 65<\/a>]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Constitution of India \u2014 Art. 14 \u2014 Invidious discrimination: Entitlement of former CMs of State of U.P. for allotment of government accommodation <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":91,"featured_media":102451,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5,16],"tags":[4751,26884,11411],"class_list":["post-198536","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casesreported","category-supremecourtcases","tag-scc","tag-cases-reported","tag-supreme-court-cases"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v26.4 (Yoast SEO v26.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>2018 SCC Vol. 6 July 14, 2018 Part 1 | 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\/2018\/07\/16\/2018-scc-vol-6-july-14-2018-part-1\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"2018 SCC Vol. 6 July 14, 2018 Part 1\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Constitution of India \u2014 Art. 14 \u2014 Invidious discrimination: Entitlement of former CMs of State of U.P. for allotment of government accommodation\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/07\/16\/2018-scc-vol-6-july-14-2018-part-1\/\" \/>\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=\"2018-07-16T07:07:51+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.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=\"7 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\/2018\/07\/16\/2018-scc-vol-6-july-14-2018-part-1\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/07\/16\/2018-scc-vol-6-july-14-2018-part-1\/\",\"name\":\"2018 SCC Vol. 6 July 14, 2018 Part 1 | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/07\/16\/2018-scc-vol-6-july-14-2018-part-1\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/07\/16\/2018-scc-vol-6-july-14-2018-part-1\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2018-07-16T07:07:51+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/07\/16\/2018-scc-vol-6-july-14-2018-part-1\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/07\/16\/2018-scc-vol-6-july-14-2018-part-1\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/07\/16\/2018-scc-vol-6-july-14-2018-part-1\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/07\/16\/2018-scc-vol-6-july-14-2018-part-1\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"2018 SCC Vol. 6 July 14, 2018 Part 1\"}]},{\"@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":"2018 SCC Vol. 6 July 14, 2018 Part 1 | 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\/2018\/07\/16\/2018-scc-vol-6-july-14-2018-part-1\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"2018 SCC Vol. 6 July 14, 2018 Part 1","og_description":"Constitution of India \u2014 Art. 14 \u2014 Invidious discrimination: Entitlement of former CMs of State of U.P. for allotment of government accommodation","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/07\/16\/2018-scc-vol-6-july-14-2018-part-1\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2018-07-16T07:07:51+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Saba","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Saba","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/07\/16\/2018-scc-vol-6-july-14-2018-part-1\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/07\/16\/2018-scc-vol-6-july-14-2018-part-1\/","name":"2018 SCC Vol. 6 July 14, 2018 Part 1 | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/07\/16\/2018-scc-vol-6-july-14-2018-part-1\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/07\/16\/2018-scc-vol-6-july-14-2018-part-1\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg","datePublished":"2018-07-16T07:07:51+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/07\/16\/2018-scc-vol-6-july-14-2018-part-1\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/07\/16\/2018-scc-vol-6-july-14-2018-part-1\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/07\/16\/2018-scc-vol-6-july-14-2018-part-1\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg","width":1330,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/07\/16\/2018-scc-vol-6-july-14-2018-part-1\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"2018 SCC Vol. 6 July 14, 2018 Part 1"}]},{"@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\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":195837,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/05\/07\/breakingformer-chief-ministers-not-entitled-to-govt-accommodation-up-law-unconstitutional-sc\/","url_meta":{"origin":198536,"position":0},"title":"Former Chief Ministers not entitled to Govt. Accommodation; UP Law unconstitutional: SC [Full Report]","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"May 7, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: Striking down Section 4(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Ministers (Salaries, Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1981, as amended in 2016, the bench of Ranjan Gogoi and R. Banumathi, JJ held: \u201cThe Chief Minister, once he\/she demits the office, is at par with the common citizen, though by virtue\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","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":321176,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/02\/2024-scc-vol-4-part-1\/","url_meta":{"origin":198536,"position":1},"title":"2024 SCC Vol. 4 Part 1","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"May 2, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 \u2014 Ss. 8, 11 and 45 r\/w Ss. 2(1)(h) and 7 \u2014 Group of Companies doctrine: Scope and ambit of Group of Companies doctrine and validity and applicability of the same for binding non-signatories to the arbitration agreement, explained. Relevance of conduct\/consent of non-signatory parties\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Cases Reported&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Cases Reported","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casesreported\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"2024 SCC Vol. 4 Part 1","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/shared-image-3.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/shared-image-3.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/shared-image-3.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/shared-image-3.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":230753,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/06\/12\/utt-hc-uttarakhand-former-chief-ministers-facility-residential-and-other-facilities-act-2019-declared-unconstitutional-being-ultra-vires-arts-14-and-21\/","url_meta":{"origin":198536,"position":2},"title":"Utt HC |\u00a0Uttarakhand Former Chief Ministers Facility (Residential and other facilities) Act, 2019 declared unconstitutional being ultra vires Arts. 14 and 21","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"June 12, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Uttaranchal High Court: A Division Bench of Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ and Ramesh Chandra Khulbe, J. declared the Uttarakahand Former Chief Ministers Facility (Residential and other Facilities) Act, 2019 as void as it extended various facilities to former Chief Ministers free of cost and hence suffers from manifest arbitrariness and is\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":379643,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/03\/29\/2026-scc-vol-2-part-5-latest-supreme-court-cases\/","url_meta":{"origin":198536,"position":3},"title":"2026 SCC Vol. 2 Part 5: Key Supreme Court Cases on Arbitration, GST, Environment Law, Companies Act, &amp; More","author":"Sonali Ahuja","date":"March 29, 2026","format":false,"excerpt":"Explore the latest Supreme Court Cases in 2026 SCC Vol. 2 Part 5 on arbitrability of dispute, Polluter Pays Principle, Registration of documents, detention and seizure of goods, and more.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Cases Reported&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Cases Reported","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casesreported\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"2026 SCC Vol. 2 Part 5","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/2026-SCC-Vol.-2-Part-5.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/2026-SCC-Vol.-2-Part-5.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/2026-SCC-Vol.-2-Part-5.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/2026-SCC-Vol.-2-Part-5.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":239965,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/12\/05\/2020-scc-vol-7-part-3\/","url_meta":{"origin":198536,"position":4},"title":"2020 SCC Vol. 7 Part 3","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"December 5, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Arbitration Act, 1940 \u2014 Ss. 30 and 39 \u2014 Grounds for setting aside award: In this case, there was no allegation of misconduct and the District Judge not held justified in setting aside the award, As the dispute was related to partition of family properties, on facts, award was modified\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Cases Reported&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Cases Reported","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casesreported\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/SCC-weekly-7-Jan-2018.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/SCC-weekly-7-Jan-2018.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/SCC-weekly-7-Jan-2018.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/SCC-weekly-7-Jan-2018.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/SCC-weekly-7-Jan-2018.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":264121,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/23\/irregular-disciplinary-enquiry-court-cannot-reinstate-employee-as-such-matter-must-be-remanded-to-enquiry-officer-disciplinary-authority\/","url_meta":{"origin":198536,"position":5},"title":"Irregular Disciplinary Enquiry: Court cannot reinstate employee as such; Matter must be remanded to Enquiry Officer\/Disciplinary Authority\u00a0","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"March 23, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: In a disciplinary proceeding where it was established that there was a breach of principles of natural justice as the relevant documents mentioned in the charge sheet were not supplied to the delinquent officer, the bench of MR Shah* and BV Nagarathna, JJ has reiterated the settled legal\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","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\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-112.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-112.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-112.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-112.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-112.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/198536","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=198536"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/198536\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/102451"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=198536"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=198536"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=198536"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}