Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1953 on partial partition.
“We are conscious of the legal position that we should be we are slow in interfering with the order when the bail has been granted by the High Court, however it is equally well settled that if such order of granting bail is found to be illegal and perverse, it must be set aside.”
Supreme Court said that due to the acute water shortage, there should be no wastage of water by the Delhi Government for which it should adopt the measures suggested by the Board.
Supreme Court noted that the Division Bench of Bombay High Court, only denied equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to the appellants but at the same time, rights of the appellants to claim relief in law before the appropriate forum have been protected.
“Once gender identity is given horizontal reservation, it follows that the transgender community, being a socially and educationally backward community discriminated based on gender identity, should also be entitled to similar reservation.”
The Court did not grant relief to Sisodia in his bail plea against Delhi High Court’s decision but granted him the liberty to revive his prayer afresh after filing of the final complaint/Charge sheet on or before 03-07-2024, after considering the assurance by Prosecution.
“The Corporation was covered under the definition of ‘industrial establishment’ and the employees uninterruptedly continued in service for 480 days or more for 24 months.”
by Vasantha Rajasekaran† and Harshvardhan Korada††
Rajasthan High Court had held that there exists no relaxation regarding category of Ex-serviceman and the Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Forest Subordinate Service Rules, 2015 states that the physical efficiency test will be applicable to candidates belonging to all categories including that of the Ex-servicemen.
The mandatory requirement of mentioning the name and designation of the authorised officer in Form 13A was dispensed with, and after the relaxation of norms, only the specimen signatures of all such officers are required.
Delhi Government sought directions for the immediate release of water from Himachal Pradesh through Haryana.
Supreme Court reiterated that exclusion clauses in insurance contracts are interpreted strictly against the insurer as they have the effect of completely exempting the insurer of its liabilities.
“If and only if, the service provider discharges its onus of showing that the service was availed, in fact for a commercial purpose, does the onus shift back to the complainant to show that the service was obtained exclusively for the purpose of earning its livelihood by means of self-employment.”
Justice Manoj Misra is the sitting judge of the Supreme Court of India. He was elevated to the Supreme Court in February 2023 and has formerly served as a Judge in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1953 on limitation period of suit on possession of immovable property.
The Court exonerated the charges of contravention of prescribing non-refundable participation fee levied on Liquidator of Corporate Debtor, however, he was found guilty of paying excess fees to BDO Restructuring Advisory LLP.
Supreme Court directed the parties to maintain status quo regarding possession, change of land use, and creation of third-party rights till fresh acquisition proceedings are completed
Regulation 4 of the Gender Sensitization & Sexual Harassment of Women at the Supreme Court of India (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal), Regulations, 2013, provides for constitution of the Gender Sensitization & Internal Complaints Committee for sensitizing the public to gender issues and to address any complaints made with regard to sexual harassment at the Supreme Court precincts.
The plea was filed for repolling in several booths of the Munger Parliamentary constituency in Bihar.
“As long as ‘Merit-cum-Seniority’ is applied in the manner as explained in All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India, (2002) 4 SCC 247, wherein both merit and seniority are considered, and merit plays the dominant role, the process of promotion cannot be said to be violative of the principle of ‘Merit-cum-Seniority’.”