{"id":213708,"date":"2019-04-18T17:30:09","date_gmt":"2019-04-18T12:00:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=213708"},"modified":"2019-04-19T11:08:17","modified_gmt":"2019-04-19T05:38:17","slug":"2019-scc-vol-3-april-7-2019-part-3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/04\/18\/2019-scc-vol-3-april-7-2019-part-3\/","title":{"rendered":"2019 SCC Vol. 3 April 7, 2019 Part 3"},"content":{"rendered":"

Service Law \u2014 Appointment \u2014 Eligibility conditions\/criteria \u2014<\/strong> Cancellation of appointment \u2014 Non-fulfilment of eligibility criteria:<\/strong> In this case, appellant was working as Management Trainee and\/or Assistant Company Secretary. The Supreme Court held that word \u201cas\u201d used in advertisement should be given literal meaning. Respondents, who were authors of advertisement and best judge to interpret usage of \u201cas\u201d specifically stating that intention was that applicant must have been appointed as Company Secretary and functioned as such for five years to be eligible for appointment. Hence, held, appellant\u2019s appointment as Management Trainee cannot be equated and\/or considered appointment \u201cas\u201d Company Secretary. When said period is excluded, appellant fails to fulfil stipulated eligibility criteria. Further held, submission by appellant that by performing duties as \u201cManagement Trainee\u201d she was also performing some duties of \u201cCompany Secretary\u201d and hence, said period should be counted to adjudge her eligibility liable to be rejected since such meaning would be changing eligibility criteria as stated in advertisement. It was further held that no interference with impugned order upholding appellant\u2019s termination order was called for. [Ritu Bhatia v. Ministry of Civil Supplies, Consumer Affairs & Public Distribution, (2019) 3 SCC 422<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Entertainment, Amusement, Leisure and Sports \u2014 Entertainers\/ Performers, Rights of \u2014 Dance performances in hotels\/restaurants \u2014 Regulation by law:<\/strong> Impugned provisions of the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels, Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women (Working therein) Act, 2016 (12 of 2016) and Rules thereunder, though permitting dance performances, introduced certain regulatory measures and impossible licence conditions such that, not a single establishment could be issued licence under impugned legislation. Such impossible, vague, unreasonable, irrational, arbitrary and invalid provisions and licence conditions set aside. However, certain other provisions, though challenged, upheld. [Indian Hotel & Restaurant Assn. (AHAR) v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 3 SCC 429<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 \u2014 S. 15(2) and Sch. V:<\/strong> Appointment of a substitute arbitrator in contravention of the arbitration agreement, not permissible. Appointment\/nomination of a retired employee a party to the agreement (the State herein) as an arbitrator cannot be assailed merely because arbitrator is retired\/prior employee of one of the parties. Position of law obtaining for the period both prior to and post amendment of 2015, clarified. [State of Haryana v. G.F. Toll Road (P) Ltd., (2019) 3 SCC 505<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Service Law \u2014 Recruitment Process \u2014 Eligibility criteria\/conditions \u2014 Acquisition of prescribed qualification after cut-off date \u2014 Validation of \u2014 Circumstances envisaged:<\/strong> In this case impugned judgment set aside selection and appointment of appellants as JEs who had put in service of nearly two decades on ground that they were not eligible for appointment since they had acquired prescribed qualification after cut-off date. Affirming correctness of reasoning of Division Bench that eligibility of candidates must be decided with reference to qualification possessed as on cut-off date, nevertheless held, interest of justice would require interference with impugned judgment considering long years of service put in by appellants and since they had already been selected and working, had not participated in subsequent three selections and now had become age-barred. Besides, as far as petitioner is concerned, more than efflux of time, fact was that he cannot secure selection because of his low marks even if appellants were ousted. [Rakesh Bakshi v. State of J&K, (2019) 3 SCC 511<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Penal Code, 1860 \u2014 Ss. 302 and 201 or Ss. 304 Pt. I and 201 [S. 300 Exception 1]:<\/strong> In this case, deceased was throttled to death with towel and dead body was burnt to conceal offence. It was held that everything occurred in fraction of a minute, depriving accused of power of self-control, conviction altered from Ss. 302 and 201 to Ss. 304 Pt. I and 201. [Nawaz v. State, (2019) 3 SCC 517<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 \u2014 Or. 22 R. 4(2) \u2014 Impleadment of all legal heirs of the deceased defendant in appeal \u2014 When not necessary:<\/strong> If out of all the legal representatives, majority of them are already on record and they contest the case on merits, it is not necessary to bring other legal representatives on record for the reason that the estate and the interest of the deceased devolved on the legal representatives is sufficiently represented by those who are already on record. [Vijay A. Mittal v. Kulwant Rai, (2019) 3 SCC 520<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Kumaun and Uttarakhand Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1960 \u2014 S. 10(e):<\/strong> Asami\/Sirdari right i.e. entitlement to take or retain possession of occupied land, held, cannot arise on the basis of forged\/surreptitious revenue record entries. Entries in the revenue record ought, generally, to be accepted at their face value but presumption of correctness can apply only to genuine, not forged or fraudulent, entries. [Dharam Singh v. Prem Singh, (2019) 3 SCC 530<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Customs \u2014 Confiscation\/Detention \u2014 Confiscation and redemption:<\/strong> Confiscation and redemption of restricted goods (as contrasted with prohibited goods) imported without requisite permission, on payment of fine, permissible. [Commr. of Customs v. Atul Automations (P) Ltd., (2019) 3 SCC 539<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 \u2014 Or. 39 R. 2-A and Or. 21 R. 32(5) \u2014 Disobedience of temporary injunction \u2014 Punishment for:<\/strong> Violation of order of injunction was serious matter. Unless there is clear evidence showing party wilfully violated court order, he cannot be punished. There must be parity of treatment when parties similarly situated are accused of violating temporary injunction. [Ramasamy v. Venkatachalapathi, (2019) 3 SCC 544<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Service Law \u2014 Pay \u2014 Parity in pay\/Pay scale \u2014 Claim to \u2014 Nature and Burden of proof: <\/strong>Employees claiming parity must prove that their nature of duties were similar but they were unjustly treated by arbitrary action or discriminated against. [Punjab State Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Rajesh Kumar Jindal, (2019) 3 SCC 547<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 \u2014 Or. 9 R. 9 \u2014 Application for restoration of suit:<\/strong> Application for restoration of suit was dismissed on ground of continuous absence in court but as continuous absence, not made out on facts, civil suit restored. [Kusumben Indersinh Dhupia v. Sudhaben Biharilalji Bhaiya, (2019) 3 SCC 569<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Railways Act, 1989 \u2014 Ss. 124-A and proviso thereto and 124 \u2014 Right to compensation on account of untoward incident:<\/strong> Concept of \u201cself-inflicted injury\u201d would require intention to inflict such injury and not mere negligence of any particular degree. Further, invocation of the principle of contributory negligence cannot be done in the case of liability based on \u201cno fault theory\u201d. Held, death or injury in the course of boarding or de-boarding a train will be an \u201cuntoward incident\u201d entitling a victim to compensation and will not fall under the proviso to S. 124-A merely on plea of negligence of victim as a contributing factor. [Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Constitution of India \u2014 Art. 32:<\/strong> Writ petition before Supreme Court for enforcement of personal contractual rights, not maintainable. Writ petition filed by ex-employee seeking writ of mandamus directing CBI to investigate into alleged financial irregularities committed by employer company, with ulterior motive of enforcement of personal rights inter se employee and employer, cannot be allowed. [Ramesh Sanka v. Union of India, (2019) 3 SCC 589<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 \u2014 Ss. 47 and 21 \u2014 Objection to territorial jurisdiction of court:<\/strong> Executing court has no jurisdiction to entertain Objection raised before executing court under S. 47 as to validity of decree sought to be executed on ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of court which passed decree. [Sneh Lata Goel v. Pushplata, (2019) 3 SCC 594<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Penal Code, 1860 \u2014 S. 307 or S. 324 \u2014 Offence under S. 307 \u2014 Ingredients of: <\/strong>Proof of grievous or life threatening hurt is not a sine qua non for offence under S. 307. Intention of accused can be ascertained from actual injury, if any, as well as from surrounding circumstances. Among other things, nature of weapon used and severity of blows inflicted, can be considered to infer intent. [State of M.P. v. Kanha, (2019) 3 SCC 605<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 \u2014 S. 30 Explanation:<\/strong> Disposal of undivided share in Mitakshara joint family properties by means of executing will, permissible. [Radhamma v. H.N. Muddukrishna, (2019) 3 SCC 611<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Penal Code, 1860 \u2014 Ss. 302\/34 \u2014 Criminal Trial \u2014 Appreciation of Evidence:<\/strong> Minor contradictions or inconsistencies immaterial, as appellant alleged to have assaulted deceased with gupti on his neck and nearby area resulting in his death, hence, conviction confirmed. [Satya Raj Singh v. State of M.P., (2019) 3 SCC 615<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993\/Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 \u2014 Ss. 17 and 18 r\/w S. 34 i.e. bar of jurisdiction under:<\/strong> A winding-up proceeding is not a proceeding that can be referred to as a proceeding for realisation of debts and since a winding-up proceeding under the Companies Act is not \u201cfor recovery of debts\u201d due to banks, the bar contained in S. 18 r\/w S. 34 of the Recovery of Debts Act would not apply. [Swaraj Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., (2019) 3 SCC 620<\/a>]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Service Law \u2014 Appointment \u2014 Eligibility conditions\/criteria \u2014 Cancellation of appointment \u2014 Non-fulfilment of eligibility criteria: In this case, appellant was working <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":182154,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5,16],"tags":[34945],"class_list":["post-213708","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casesreported","category-supremecourtcases","tag-2019-scc-vol-3-april-7-2019-part-3"],"yoast_head":"\n2019 SCC Vol. 3 April 7, 2019 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\/2019\/04\/18\/2019-scc-vol-3-april-7-2019-part-3\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"2019 SCC Vol. 3 April 7, 2019 Part 3\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Service Law \u2014 Appointment \u2014 Eligibility conditions\/criteria \u2014 Cancellation of appointment \u2014 Non-fulfilment of eligibility criteria: In this case, appellant was working\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/04\/18\/2019-scc-vol-3-april-7-2019-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=\"2019-04-18T12:00:09+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-04-19T05:38:17+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/SCC-weekly-7-Jan-2018.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=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\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\/2019\/04\/18\/2019-scc-vol-3-april-7-2019-part-3\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/04\/18\/2019-scc-vol-3-april-7-2019-part-3\/\",\"name\":\"2019 SCC Vol. 3 April 7, 2019 Part 3 | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/04\/18\/2019-scc-vol-3-april-7-2019-part-3\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/04\/18\/2019-scc-vol-3-april-7-2019-part-3\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/SCC-weekly-7-Jan-2018.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2019-04-18T12:00:09+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-19T05:38:17+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/04\/18\/2019-scc-vol-3-april-7-2019-part-3\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/04\/18\/2019-scc-vol-3-april-7-2019-part-3\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/04\/18\/2019-scc-vol-3-april-7-2019-part-3\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/SCC-weekly-7-Jan-2018.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/SCC-weekly-7-Jan-2018.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/04\/18\/2019-scc-vol-3-april-7-2019-part-3\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"2019 SCC Vol. 3 April 7, 2019 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\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\",\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Bhumika Indulia\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"2019 SCC Vol. 3 April 7, 2019 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\/2019\/04\/18\/2019-scc-vol-3-april-7-2019-part-3\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"2019 SCC Vol. 3 April 7, 2019 Part 3","og_description":"Service Law \u2014 Appointment \u2014 Eligibility conditions\/criteria \u2014 Cancellation of appointment \u2014 Non-fulfilment of eligibility criteria: In this case, appellant was working","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/04\/18\/2019-scc-vol-3-april-7-2019-part-3\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2019-04-18T12:00:09+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-04-19T05:38:17+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/SCC-weekly-7-Jan-2018.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/04\/18\/2019-scc-vol-3-april-7-2019-part-3\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/04\/18\/2019-scc-vol-3-april-7-2019-part-3\/","name":"2019 SCC Vol. 3 April 7, 2019 Part 3 | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/04\/18\/2019-scc-vol-3-april-7-2019-part-3\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/04\/18\/2019-scc-vol-3-april-7-2019-part-3\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/SCC-weekly-7-Jan-2018.jpg","datePublished":"2019-04-18T12:00:09+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-19T05:38:17+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/04\/18\/2019-scc-vol-3-april-7-2019-part-3\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/04\/18\/2019-scc-vol-3-april-7-2019-part-3\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/04\/18\/2019-scc-vol-3-april-7-2019-part-3\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/SCC-weekly-7-Jan-2018.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/SCC-weekly-7-Jan-2018.jpg","width":1330,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/04\/18\/2019-scc-vol-3-april-7-2019-part-3\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"2019 SCC Vol. 3 April 7, 2019 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\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a","name":"Bhumika Indulia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","caption":"Bhumika Indulia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/SCC-weekly-7-Jan-2018.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":216053,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/06\/27\/2019-scc-vol-5-june-21-2019-part-5\/","url_meta":{"origin":213708,"position":0},"title":"2019 SCC Vol. 5 June 21, 2019 Part 5","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"June 27, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 \u2014 Ss. 12(5) (w.e.f. 23-10-2015), 12 & 13, 14 & 15 and Sch. 7 Item 5 \u2014 Application for termination of mandate of a de jure ineligible arbitrator by a party which itself had appointed such arbitrator: De jure ineligibility of arbitrator appointed by person\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\/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":214322,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/04\/courts-cant-do-interpretive-rewriting-of-the-advertisement-thereby-changing-the-conditions-of-eligibility\/","url_meta":{"origin":213708,"position":1},"title":"Courts can\u2019t do interpretive re\u00adwriting of the advertisement thereby changing the conditions of eligibility","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"May 4, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: Stating that the essential qualifications for appointment to a post are for the employer to decide, the bench of Arun Mishra and Navin Sinha, JJ said, \u201cThe court cannot lay down the conditions of eligibility, much less can it delve into the issue with regard to desirable qualifications\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":162194,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/10\/07\/obtaining-of-basic-school-teacher-certificate-subsequent-to-clearing-rajasthan-teachers-eligibility-test-held-to-be-legal\/","url_meta":{"origin":213708,"position":2},"title":"Obtaining of Basic School Teacher Certificate subsequent to clearing Rajasthan Teachers\u2019 Eligibility Test held to be legal","author":"Saba","date":"October 7, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"Rajasthan High Court: The petitioner challenged the rejection of her candidature by the respondents for appointment to the post of Teacher Grade\u2013III, Level\u2013I on the ground that the petitioner had obtained Basic School Teacher Certificate (BSTC) subsequent to clearing Rajasthan Teachers\u2019 Eligibility Test (RTET). The brief facts of this case\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":323894,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/08\/del-hc-appointment-arbitrator-post-2015-amendment-must-meet-eligibility-criteria-contract-excution-arbitration-commencement-dates-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":213708,"position":3},"title":"Delhi High Court | Appointment of Arbitrators Post-2015 Amendment must adhere to eligibility criteria regardless of contract execution and arbitration commencement dates","author":"Arunima","date":"June 8, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The clear ineligibility to any unilateral appointment is set out in Section 12 of the Arbitration Act read with the Seventh Schedule of the Act. After the 2015 Amendment to the Act came into effect, any unilateral appointment would be contrary to the law.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":369065,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/07\/2025-scc-vol-9-part-5-latest-supreme-court-cases\/","url_meta":{"origin":213708,"position":4},"title":"2025 SCC Vol. 9 Part 5","author":"Sonali Ahuja","date":"December 7, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"2025 SCC Vol. 9 Part 5: Explore the latest Supreme Court Cases on Arbitration, Civil Procedure Code, Consumer Commissions, Election Law, NI Act, Service Law, and IBC.","rel":"","context":"In "Cases Reported"","block_context":{"text":"Cases Reported","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casesreported\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"2025 SCC Vol. 9 Part 5","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/2025-SCC-Vol.-9-Part-5.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/2025-SCC-Vol.-9-Part-5.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/2025-SCC-Vol.-9-Part-5.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/2025-SCC-Vol.-9-Part-5.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":142251,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/07\/14\/compassionate-appointment-not-a-vested-right-of-dependent-of-a-deceased-employee-if-required-to-fulfil-certain-criteria\/","url_meta":{"origin":213708,"position":5},"title":"Compassionate appointment not a vested right of dependent of a deceased employee, if required to fulfil certain criteria","author":"Saba","date":"July 14, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"Kerala High Court: In a petition challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulum, that had directed the petitioner company to consider the respondent\u2019s application for his appointment on compassionate grounds on the death of his father, was allowed and a Bench comprising of P.R. Ramchandran Menon and Shircy\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\/213708","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\/8808"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=213708"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/213708\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/182154"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=213708"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=213708"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=213708"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}