Author name: G.R. Hari

Supreme Court Directs Appointment of Sub-Inspectors in Bihar Recruitment Case: Chandra Gupta Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2017) INSC 737 (14 September 2017)

/ Appointment of Sub-Inspectors, Final Orders, Interim Orders, Judges, Kurian Joseph, R. Banumathi, Selection Process, Service Law, Supreme Court Orders

Date of the Judgment: 14 September 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 737 Judges: Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice R. Banumathi Can a prolonged recruitment process, marred by litigation, finally reach a conclusion? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case concerning the appointment of Sub-Inspectors in Bihar, where the selection process had been […]

Supreme Court Directs Appointment of Sub-Inspectors in Bihar Recruitment Case: Chandra Gupta Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2017) INSC 737 (14 September 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal on Trade Union Membership: All Escorts Employees Union vs. State of Haryana (2017)

/ A.K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 19(1)(c), Judges, Trade Union, Trade Unions Act, 1926, Trade Unions Act, 1926 with Section 2(g), Trade Unions Act, 1926 with Section 6(e)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a trade union can have members who work in different industries or establishments. CASE TYPE: Labour Law Case Name: All Escorts Employees Union vs. State of Haryana & Ors. [Judgment Date]: 14 September 2017 Date of the Judgment: 14 September 2017 Citation: 2017 INSC 773 Judges: A.K. Sikri, J. and Ashok Bhushan,

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal on Trade Union Membership: All Escorts Employees Union vs. State of Haryana (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Allows Service Till 60 Years: Shaik Musthapha Saheb vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2017)

/ Appeals, Civil Procedure, Judges, Kurian Joseph, R. Banumathi, Retirement Age, Service Law

Can employees claim the right to continue in service until the age of 60? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a batch of appeals, including the case of Shaik Musthapha Saheb vs. State of Andhra Pradesh. This judgment, delivered on September 14, 2017, allows the appellants’ claim for continued service up to

Supreme Court Allows Service Till 60 Years: Shaik Musthapha Saheb vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation Period for Fatal Accident Claims: Damini vs. Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam (2017)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 142, Fatal Accident Claim, Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 with Section 1A, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 113, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 82, R. Banumathi, Tort Law

LEGAL ISSUE: Determining the limitation period for filing a claim under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. CASE TYPE: Tort Law, Fatal Accident Claim Case Name: Damini and Another vs. Managing Director, Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and Another Judgment Date: 14 September 2017 Date of the Judgment: 14 September 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 744 Judges:

Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation Period for Fatal Accident Claims: Damini vs. Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court directs fresh MCI inspection for medical college: Annaii Medical College & Hospital vs. Union of India (2017)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud, Dipak Misra, Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999, Establishment of Medical Colleges, Judges, Medical Council of India (MCI), Medical Education Law

Can a medical college be denied permission to operate based on a single inspection? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case involving Annaii Medical College. The court directed a fresh inspection to ensure fairness and accuracy. This case highlights the importance of thorough evaluation in granting permissions to medical colleges. LEGAL

Supreme Court directs fresh MCI inspection for medical college: Annaii Medical College & Hospital vs. Union of India (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Disability Assessment Rules in Public Service Appointment: Rima Taipodia vs. Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (2017)

/ Disability Assessment, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 with Rules 4 and 5, Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Rules, 1996, Public Service Appointments, R. Banumathi, Service Law

LEGAL ISSUE: The case concerns the correct procedure for assessing disability for public service appointments under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and the rules framed thereunder. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Rima Taipodia vs. Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission & Ors. Judgment Date: 14 September

Supreme Court Upholds Disability Assessment Rules in Public Service Appointment: Rima Taipodia vs. Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Wakf Board’s Ownership, Dismisses Adverse Possession Claim: Dharampal vs. Punjab Wakf Board (2017)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Adverse Possession, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order 8 Rule 6A(4), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order 9 Rule 9, Judges, Property Law, R.K. Agrawal, Wakf Act, 1954, Wakf Act, 1954 with Section 55-C, Wakf Act, 1954 with Section 6, Wakf Property

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a claim of adverse possession can be used to claim ownership of Wakf property and whether a civil suit is barred by Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 if a previous suit on the same matter was dismissed for default. CASE TYPE: Property Law, Wakf Law Case

Supreme Court Upholds Wakf Board’s Ownership, Dismisses Adverse Possession Claim: Dharampal vs. Punjab Wakf Board (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Estoppel in Recruitment Dispute: D. Sarojakumari vs. R. Helen Thilakom (2017)

/ Deepak Gupta, Direct Recruitment, Estoppel, Judges, Kerala Education Rules, Kerala Education Rules with Rule 43, Madan B. Lokur, Seniority, Service Law

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a candidate who participates in a selection process can later challenge the same process after being unsuccessful. CASE TYPE: Service Law. Case Name: D. Sarojakumari vs. R. Helen Thilakom & Ors. Judgment Date: September 13, 2017 Date of the Judgment: September 13, 2017. Citation: Not Available. Judges: Madan B. Lokur, J. and

Supreme Court Upholds Estoppel in Recruitment Dispute: D. Sarojakumari vs. R. Helen Thilakom (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Adjourns Decision on Pension Eligibility: Karan Singh vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (2017)

/ A.K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan, Judges, Pension Benefits, Qualifying Service, Service Law, Service Law with Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a period of training and leave without pay can be included in the calculation of qualifying service for pension benefits. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Karan Singh vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [Judgment Date]: 13 September 2017 Date of the Judgment: 13 September 2017 Citation: Civil Appeal No.12743 of 2017

Supreme Court Adjourns Decision on Pension Eligibility: Karan Singh vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Reduces Land Compensation: Manoj Kumar vs. State of Haryana (2017) INSC 744 (13 September 2017)

/ Arun Mishra, Judges, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 18, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with Section 4, Land Compensation, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar

Date of the Judgment: 13 September 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 744 Judges: Arun Mishra, J. and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J. Is it justifiable for a High Court to blindly follow a previous judgment when determining land compensation, or should each case be evaluated based on its own merits and evidence? The Supreme Court of India

Supreme Court Reduces Land Compensation: Manoj Kumar vs. State of Haryana (2017) INSC 744 (13 September 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies seniority in IPS: Grade pay not the basis for seniority: Union of India vs. Raj Kumar Jha (2017) INSC 760 (12 September 2017)

/ Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, Indian Police Service (Pay) Rules, 2007, Judges, Kurian Joseph, R. Banumathi, Seniority, Service Law, Sixth Pay Commission

Date of the Judgment: 12 September 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 760 Judges: Kurian Joseph, J., R. Banumathi, J. Can an officer’s seniority in the Indian Police Service (IPS) be determined by their grade pay, especially if they were inducted from another service? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent judgment, clarifying

Supreme Court clarifies seniority in IPS: Grade pay not the basis for seniority: Union of India vs. Raj Kumar Jha (2017) INSC 760 (12 September 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Dismisses Suit Claiming Ownership of Ancient Temple: State of Uttarakhand vs. Mandir Sri Laxman Sidh Maharaj (2017)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Adverse Possession, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 80, Judges, Property Law, R.K. Agrawal

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a private individual can claim ownership of a heritage temple and surrounding land based on adverse possession without proper pleadings and evidence. CASE TYPE: Civil Law – Property Dispute Case Name: State of Uttarakhand & Anr. vs. Mandir Sri Laxman Sidh Maharaj Judgment Date: September 12, 2017 Introduction Date of the Judgment:

Supreme Court Dismisses Suit Claiming Ownership of Ancient Temple: State of Uttarakhand vs. Mandir Sri Laxman Sidh Maharaj (2017) Read Post »

Scroll to Top