{"id":205356,"date":"2018-11-17T11:30:10","date_gmt":"2018-11-17T06:00:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=205356"},"modified":"2018-11-22T16:15:51","modified_gmt":"2018-11-22T10:45:51","slug":"2018-scc-vol-9-november-14-2018-part-4","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/11\/17\/2018-scc-vol-9-november-14-2018-part-4\/","title":{"rendered":"2018 SCC Vol. 9 November 14, 2018 Part 4"},"content":{"rendered":"

Armed Forces \u2014 Pension \u2014 Computation:<\/strong> Cl. 4(a) of Navy Instruction No. 2\/S\/74 defined \u201cbasic pay\u201d to denote pay \u201cactually drawn\u201d in scale prescribed for rank and group, which was issued to give effect to recommendations of Third Pay Commission and remained in force till 1-1-1986. It was held that appellants\u2019 case was governed by said Instructions as they retired on 1-1-1983. Submission of respondents that submarine pay was excluded from ambit of basic pay as per Special Navy Instructions Nos. 1\/S\/86, 1\/S\/9-W and 1\/S\/08 liable to be rejected, since these notifications came into force subsequent to date of superannuation of appellants. Thus, submarine pay was includible in \u201cpay\u201d for purposes of computing Service Pension of appellants. [N.N. Godfred v. Union of India, (2018) 9 SCC 666<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Associations, Societies and Clubs \u2014 Body discharging public function but not amounting to \u201cState\u201d \u2014 BCCI:<\/strong> Draft Constitution prepared by Committee of Administrators of BCCI keeping in view recommendations of Justice Lodha Committee Report, approved. [BCCI v. Cricket Assn. of Bihar, (2018) 9 SCC 624<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Constitution of India \u2014 Art. 226 \u2014 Writs \u2014Habeas corpus:<\/strong> In a habeas corpus petition the High Court must examine at the threshold whether the minor is in lawful or unlawful custody of another person. The Court must take into account the totality of the facts and circumstances whilst ensuring the best interest of the minor child. Further, the fact that the minor child will have better prospects upon return to his\/her native country, may be a relevant aspect in a substantive proceedings for grant of custody of the minor child but will not be decisive to examine the threshold issues in a habeas corpus petition. For the purpose of habeas corpus petition, the Court ought to focus on the obtaining circumstances of the minor child having been removed from the native country and taken to a place to encounter alien environment, language, custom, etc. interfering with his\/her overall growth and grooming and whether continuance there will be harmful. [Kanika Goel v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 9 SCC 578<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Constitution of India \u2014 Arts. 25 and 26 r\/w Art. 145(3) \u2014 Freedom to follow faith and manage religious affairs:<\/strong> 1934 Constitution of Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, cannot be said to be in violation of Arts. 25 and 26. [Mathews Mar Koorilos v. M. Pappy, (2018) 9 SCC 672<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Constitution of India \u2014 Arts. 27, 19(1)(g), 19(6) and 14 \u2014 Haj Policy of Private Tour Operators, 2018, Annexure-A \u2014 Rejection of claim of petitioner for registration of PTO for Haj 2018:<\/strong> In this case petitioner applied for quota as private limited company but turnover relied upon was of proprietorship firm without offering any satisfactory explanation therefor nor submitting any relevant documents including conversion of proprietorship firm into private limited company with transfer of its assets and liabilities as alleged. Hence it was held that there was no infirmity in order dt. 31-5-2018 refusing registration for non-compliance with Clause (iv), Appendix A, Haj Policy, 2018. [Ruby Tour Services (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2018) 9 SCC 537<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Crimes Against Women and Children \u2014 Sexual Abuse and Rape of Minor Girls in Shelter Homes\/Child Homes:<\/strong> Repeated interrogation, questioning, visiting\/interviewing of victims regarding incident by officials and journalist is hardly conducive for the welfare and well-being of minor victims of sexual abuse and rape in Shelter Homes\/Child Homes. Media must be restrained from publishing images of victims even in morphed or blurred form. Media directed to keep interests of victims in mind while dissemination of news. Process to be followed by investigating agencies dealing with case, set out. Various Authorities\/Institutions directed to submit reports, for further directions. [Sampurna Behura v. Union of India, (2018) 9 SCC 555<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 \u2014 Ss. 320 and 482 \u2014 Compounding of offences with permission of Court:<\/strong> In this case related to offences under Ss. 406 and 420 IPC, as complainant was satisfied that his amount was received as per direction of Supreme Court, parties were relegated to trial court for compounding. Trial court directed to pass appropriate orders and coercive orders passed against accused withdrawn. [Raj Sharma v. State of U.P., (2018) 9 SCC 660<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Criminal Trial \u2014 Confession \u2014 Extra-judicial confession\/Hearsay \u2014 Evidentiary value of:<\/strong> Extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. It cannot form basis for conviction, unless supported by other substantive evidence. [State of Karnataka v. P. Ravikumar, (2018) 9 SCC 614<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Family and Personal Laws \u2014 Hindu Law \u2014 Adoption \u2014 Proof of \u2014 Principles summarized:<\/strong> Factum of adoption and its validity has to be duly proved. Though formal ceremony of giving and taking is essential ingredient for valid adoption, long duration of time during which a person is treated as adopted cannot be ignored. Such fact by itself may carry a presumption in favour of adoption. [Kamla Rani v. Ram Lalit Rai, (2018) 9 SCC 663<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Government Grants, Largesse, Public Property and Public Premises \u2014 Recovery of possession\/Re-entry by State upon Termination\/Cancellation\/Resumption\/Lapse:<\/strong> In this case lease was expired a long time ago, and was not renewed, but tenants continued to be in possession. Eviction order was passed in such without opportunity of hearing. Tenant cannot claim indefeasible right to continue in premises. Balancing of this principle with fact that rights of tenants under Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution might be affected, open auction of such premises in bidding and allotment to highest bidder, directed. On facts, balancing rights of both parties, occupation of premises by tenant, directed not to be disturbed till bidding process is completed. [Bharmal Medical Store v. State of M.P., (2018) 9 SCC 617<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Hindu Law \u2014 Marriage and Divorce \u2014 Grounds for Divorce \u2014 Irretrievable breakdown of marriage:<\/strong> In this case divorce was granted ex parte by impugned judgment, thus prejudicing rights of appellant wife. It was held that logical consequence would normally be to set aside impugned judgment and remit matter for fresh consideration. However, considering that parties were willing to part company on mutually acceptable terms, appellant husband was directed to pay Rs 30 lakhs towards permanent alimony plus Rs 5 lakhs by way of gesture of goodwill towards her medical expenses finding that parties were living separately for more than a decade and there was absolutely no chance of reconciliation, no issue was born from wedlock, appellant wife ailing for long time and staying with her relatives having no independent income while respondent husband was quite resourceful residing in independent bungalow in posh colony in Pune. [Usha Uday Khiwansara v. Uday Kumar Jethamal Khiwansara, (2018) 9 SCC 569<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 \u2014 Ss. 149, 147 and 168 \u2014 Third-party insurance:<\/strong> When award has been passed against insured owner, it is to be paid by insurer and recovered from owner. Insurer is not required to file a suit. It may initiate a proceeding before executing court concerned as if dispute between insurer and owner was subject-matter of determination before Tribunal and issue is decided against owner and in favour of insurer. [Shamanna v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2018) 9 SCC 650<\/a>]<\/p>\n

National Security Act, 1980 \u2014 Ss. 3(4) and 8 \u2014 Requirement of reporting detention to State Government \u201cforthwith\u201d \u2014 \u201cForthwith\u201d \u2014 Connotation of:<\/strong> \u201cForthwith\u201d does not mean instantaneous, but without undue delay and within reasonable time at the earliest possible. Further held, fact whether detention order was reported to State Government within reasonable time and without undue delay is to be ascertained from facts of each case. Delay between date of detention and date of submitting report to State Government must be due to unavoidable circumstances beyond control of authority and not because of administrative laxity. [Hetchin Haokip v. State of Manipur, (2018) 9 SCC 562<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 \u2014 Ss. 4(5) and (6) \u2014 Forfeiture of gratuity \u2014 When permissible:<\/strong> Forfeiture of gratuity on the ground of misconduct which constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude, is permissible only if the person is convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction for the said offence. [Union Bank of India v. C.G. Ajay Babu, (2018) 9 SCC 529<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Penal Code, 1860 \u2014 S. 304 Pt. I \u2014 Culpable homicide not amounting to murder \u2014 Inference of, from nature of injury inflicted:<\/strong> In this case death of one was due to gunshot injury on thigh, and injuries to one other using other weapons. Conviction of accused for firing said gunshot alone, for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and acquittal of the rest of the accused, confirmed. [State of M.P. v. Gangabishan, (2018) 9 SCC 574<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Penal Code, 1860 \u2014 Ss. 302, 201, 392 and 397 \u2014 Murder trial:<\/strong> High Court reversed conviction of all respondent-accused due to inconsistencies and material contradiction present in this case, hence, acquittal confirmed. [State of Karnataka v. A.B. Mahesha, (2018) 9 SCC 612<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Penal Code, 1860 \u2014 Ss. 498-A and 306 \u2014 Bride committing suicide:<\/strong> In this case harassment due to alleged dowry demand and cruelty meted out to deceased by appellant-accused husband, having illicit relationship with another woman, were established as causes of suicide. It was held that High Court rightly maintained conviction of appellant under Ss. 498-A and 306 IPC, with RI for 2 and 5 years, respectively. Furthermore, held, there were no grounds for reduction of sentence. [Siddaling v. State, (2018) 9 SCC 621<\/a>]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Armed Forces \u2014 Pension \u2014 Computation: Cl. 4(a) of Navy Instruction No. 2\/S\/74 defined \u201cbasic pay\u201d to denote pay \u201cactually drawn\u201d in <\/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-205356","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":"\n2018 SCC Vol. 9 November 14, 2018 Part 4 | 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\/11\/17\/2018-scc-vol-9-november-14-2018-part-4\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"2018 SCC Vol. 9 November 14, 2018 Part 4\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Armed Forces \u2014 Pension \u2014 Computation: Cl. 4(a) of Navy Instruction No. 2\/S\/74 defined \u201cbasic pay\u201d to denote pay \u201cactually drawn\u201d in\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/11\/17\/2018-scc-vol-9-november-14-2018-part-4\/\" \/>\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=\"2018-11-17T06:00:10+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-22T10:45:51+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\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2018\\\/11\\\/17\\\/2018-scc-vol-9-november-14-2018-part-4\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2018\\\/11\\\/17\\\/2018-scc-vol-9-november-14-2018-part-4\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Saba\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785\"},\"headline\":\"2018 SCC Vol. 9 November 14, 2018 Part 4\",\"datePublished\":\"2018-11-17T06:00:10+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-22T10:45:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2018\\\/11\\\/17\\\/2018-scc-vol-9-november-14-2018-part-4\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1436,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2018\\\/11\\\/17\\\/2018-scc-vol-9-november-14-2018-part-4\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2017\\\/01\\\/scccover-28.1.jpg\",\"keywords\":[\"#SCC\",\"Cases reported\",\"supreme court cases\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Cases Reported\",\"SCC Weekly\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2018\\\/11\\\/17\\\/2018-scc-vol-9-november-14-2018-part-4\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2018\\\/11\\\/17\\\/2018-scc-vol-9-november-14-2018-part-4\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2018\\\/11\\\/17\\\/2018-scc-vol-9-november-14-2018-part-4\\\/\",\"name\":\"2018 SCC Vol. 9 November 14, 2018 Part 4 | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2018\\\/11\\\/17\\\/2018-scc-vol-9-november-14-2018-part-4\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2018\\\/11\\\/17\\\/2018-scc-vol-9-november-14-2018-part-4\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2017\\\/01\\\/scccover-28.1.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2018-11-17T06:00:10+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-22T10:45:51+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2018\\\/11\\\/17\\\/2018-scc-vol-9-november-14-2018-part-4\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2018\\\/11\\\/17\\\/2018-scc-vol-9-november-14-2018-part-4\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2018\\\/11\\\/17\\\/2018-scc-vol-9-november-14-2018-part-4\\\/#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\\\/11\\\/17\\\/2018-scc-vol-9-november-14-2018-part-4\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"2018 SCC Vol. 9 November 14, 2018 Part 4\"}]},{\"@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:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/a815285315cd85d8b3246c60ed8ed99825949c1b85b370c49212daa54ededa98?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"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. 9 November 14, 2018 Part 4 | 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\/11\/17\/2018-scc-vol-9-november-14-2018-part-4\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"2018 SCC Vol. 9 November 14, 2018 Part 4","og_description":"Armed Forces \u2014 Pension \u2014 Computation: Cl. 4(a) of Navy Instruction No. 2\/S\/74 defined \u201cbasic pay\u201d to denote pay \u201cactually drawn\u201d in","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/11\/17\/2018-scc-vol-9-november-14-2018-part-4\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2018-11-17T06:00:10+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-22T10:45:51+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":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/11\/17\/2018-scc-vol-9-november-14-2018-part-4\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/11\/17\/2018-scc-vol-9-november-14-2018-part-4\/"},"author":{"name":"Saba","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785"},"headline":"2018 SCC Vol. 9 November 14, 2018 Part 4","datePublished":"2018-11-17T06:00:10+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-22T10:45:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/11\/17\/2018-scc-vol-9-november-14-2018-part-4\/"},"wordCount":1436,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/11\/17\/2018-scc-vol-9-november-14-2018-part-4\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg","keywords":["#SCC","Cases reported","supreme court cases"],"articleSection":["Cases Reported","SCC Weekly"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/11\/17\/2018-scc-vol-9-november-14-2018-part-4\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/11\/17\/2018-scc-vol-9-november-14-2018-part-4\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/11\/17\/2018-scc-vol-9-november-14-2018-part-4\/","name":"2018 SCC Vol. 9 November 14, 2018 Part 4 | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/11\/17\/2018-scc-vol-9-november-14-2018-part-4\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/11\/17\/2018-scc-vol-9-november-14-2018-part-4\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg","datePublished":"2018-11-17T06:00:10+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-22T10:45:51+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/11\/17\/2018-scc-vol-9-november-14-2018-part-4\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/11\/17\/2018-scc-vol-9-november-14-2018-part-4\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/11\/17\/2018-scc-vol-9-november-14-2018-part-4\/#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\/11\/17\/2018-scc-vol-9-november-14-2018-part-4\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"2018 SCC Vol. 9 November 14, 2018 Part 4"}]},{"@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:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a815285315cd85d8b3246c60ed8ed99825949c1b85b370c49212daa54ededa98?s=96&d=mm&r=g","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":243049,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/30\/after-a-vain-attempt-to-seek-clarification-of-scs-2018-order-punjab-govt-to-pay-pension-to-all-214-beneficiaries-of-1991-pension-scheme\/","url_meta":{"origin":205356,"position":0},"title":"Punjab Govt to pay pension to all 214 beneficiaries of 1991 Pension Scheme: SC","author":"Editor","date":"January 30, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: The 3-Judge Bench of S.A. Bobde, CJ and L. Nageswara Rao and Vineet Saran, JJ., heard the instant application filed for seeking clarification of the order dated 30-01-2018 as the applicants were not granted pension in accordance with the said order, though their names were found in 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\/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":266617,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/05\/09\/2022-scc-vol-3-part-4-supreme-court-cases\/","url_meta":{"origin":205356,"position":1},"title":"2022 SCC Vol. 3 Part 4","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"May 9, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"In Part 4 of 2022 SCC Volume 3, read some very pertinent Supreme Court decisions, involving aspects regarding reservation, accountability of social media platforms, service law and more. Constitution of India \u2014 Arts. 14, 15, 16 and 226 \u2014 Writ of mandamus in matters of reservation \u2014 Scope and limit:\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Cases Reported"","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\/2021\/06\/SCC_Standard.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/SCC_Standard.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/SCC_Standard.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/SCC_Standard.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/SCC_Standard.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":205149,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/11\/15\/temporary-employees-entitled-to-minimum-of-the-pay-scales-on-parity-with-regular-employees-allahabad-hc-judgment-holding-contrary-set-aside-sc\/","url_meta":{"origin":205356,"position":2},"title":"Temporary employees entitled to minimum of the pay scales on parity with regular employees; Allahabad HC judgment holding contrary set aside: SC","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"November 15, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court:\u00a0A bench comprising of S.A. Bobde and L. Nageswara Rao, JJ. allowed an appeal filed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court and\u00a0directed the State of U.P. to pay minimum of pay scales to the appellants. The appellants were the daily workers employed in\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":216691,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/07\/10\/raj-hc-insurer-directed-to-first-compensate-the-claimants-and-thereafter-recover-the-same-from-the-insured-party\/","url_meta":{"origin":205356,"position":3},"title":"Raj HC | Insurer directed to first compensate the claimants and thereafter recover the same from the insured party","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"July 10, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Rajasthan High Court: P.K. Lohra J., in an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 upheld the decision of the impugned judgment and directed the insurer to first pay the compensation amount to the claimants and then recover from the insured. In the present case, the appellants\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":200388,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/24\/2018-scc-vol-7-august-21-2018-part-2\/","url_meta":{"origin":205356,"position":4},"title":"2018 SCC Vol. 7 August 21, 2018 Part 2","author":"Saba","date":"August 24, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Advocates \u2014 Government Law Officers\/Counsel\/Pleader\/Public Prosecutor: Method of appointment and conditions of service of Asstt. Public Prosecutors and Public Prosecutors are qualitatively different inasmuch as Asstt. Public Prosecutors are appointed through competitive selection process conducted by PSC as per prevalent rules and are entitled to all service benefits enjoyed by\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Cases Reported"","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\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":202450,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/28\/packing-and-affixing-brand-names-amount-to-manufacturing-appellants-held-liable-to-pay-duty\/","url_meta":{"origin":205356,"position":5},"title":"Packing and affixing brand names amount to manufacturing; appellants held liable to pay duty","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"September 28, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): This appeal was filed before V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) against the decision of Commissioner of Customs who upheld the order of Adjudicating Authority imposing duty on the appellants. Facts of the case are such that a search was conducted during which Departmental\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\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/205356","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=205356"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/205356\/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=205356"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=205356"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=205356"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}