Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Since the Odisha Lokayukta was not given any opportunity of being heard when the Division Bench of Orissa High Court set aside the inquiry order, the Supreme Court held the same as a manifest error in violation of the principles of natural justice.
The Supreme Court opined that even if such a classification had a rational nexus to the objective of the notification, the classification must also be legitimized by the parent statute.
The Supreme Court was unimpressed with the explanation given by the plaintiff for the delay of 853 days that he initially fell sick with Jaundice and was later confined to house with High Blood Pressure, Diabetes and other diseases. The petition had extension of time to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs. 15,00,000/-.
The matter pertains to death of a Constable during election duty and claim of insurance raised after more than 7 years of the incident, wherein, the liability of insurance company and Election authorities was in question before the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court stated that the appellants may approach the relevant Coastal Zonal Management Authority within a period of one month as regards to laying down the pipelines was concerned which will be considered by any application made in regard to the continued use of the pipeline.
“The wisdom and advisability of the Courts in the matters concerning the finance, are ordinarily not amenable to judicial review unless a gross case of arbitrariness or unfairness is established by the aggrieved party.”, observed Supreme Court
Courts should not interfere in the internal issue of a party and leave it open to the party and its members to take a particular decision for better administration, stated Supreme Court
In a case related to caste-based discrimination against an associate professor of IIT-K by fellow faculty members, the Supreme Court played a conciliatory role and handled a very sensitive matter with equal sensitivity.
Supreme Court held that the period of suspension of legal proceedings is excludable in computing the period of limitation for the enforcement of such right in terms of Section 22(5), SICA. Further, the dismissal of the application under Section 9, IBC on the ground of ‘pre-existing dispute’ cannot be held to be patently illegal or perverse.
Some members of the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service had claimed that the service rendered by them as District & Sessions Fast Track judges on Ad-hoc basis was not considered for elevation to the Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
NHRC had refused to interfere with the instant case of medical negligence, while SHRC issued certain directions. The High Court also did not find anything wrong with the directions of SHRC, hence, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court in the present matter.
Supreme Court held that there is neither illegality associated with the establishment of the Delimitation Commission, nor anything illegal about the exercise of delimitation of the constituencies undertaken by it.
“If the said Section 6-A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 is not struck off being ultra vires, it would be impossible to free Assam from the clutches of illegal immigrants, who have entered Assam in view of the impugned provisions of the aforesaid amended Act.” the petitioner’s submitted.
Supreme Court said that the Allahabad High Court committed a serious error in interpreting Rule 176(4) of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952.
The Supreme Court held that merely because either of the parties have disputed a factum of paternity, it does not mean that the Court should direct DNA test or such other test to resolve the controversy. Only in exceptional and deserving cases, where such a test becomes indispensable to resolve the controversy the Court can direct such test.
Supreme Court held that the respondent could not have been given the pensionary benefits as Scientist -H in NTRO, as before her probation period was completed, she was relieved.
In a suit property where father executed a release deed for relinquishment of rights for valuable consideration, Supreme Court held that the effect of principle of estoppel cannot be warded off by appellants claiming through their father whose conduct generated this estoppel.
Constitution of India — Art. 14 — Right to equality — Reasonable accommodation of disabled or differently-abled persons — Requirement of: There
Supreme Court upheld the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s order holding the respondent as the owner of the encroached land, as an encroacher cannot claim benefit of Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
Guided by the principles of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, the Supreme Court set aside the decision of Division Bench of Delhi High Court restraining a commercial project spread across 115-acres.