Supreme Court Upholds Termination of Headmistress After Disciplinary Inquiry: Shri Yogiraj Shikshan Prasarak Mandal vs. Vidya (2019)

/ Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Disciplinary Inquiry, Indira Banerjee, Judges, Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, Rule 37(6), Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, Service Law

Supreme Court Upholds Termination of Headmistress After Disciplinary Inquiry: Shri Yogiraj Shikshan Prasarak Mandal vs. Vidya (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the inquiry committee followed the correct procedure in a disciplinary inquiry against an employee. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Shri Yogiraj Shikshan Prasarak Mandal & Ors. vs. Vidya (Dead) Thru Lrs. & Anr. Judgment […]

Supreme Court Upholds Termination of Headmistress After Disciplinary Inquiry: Shri Yogiraj Shikshan Prasarak Mandal vs. Vidya (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Status of Private School Management Committees Under Article 12: Trigun Chand Thakur vs. State of Bihar (2019)

/ A.S. Bopanna, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 12, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Judges, R. Banumathi, Service Law, Termination of Service

Supreme Court Clarifies Status of Private School Management Committees Under Article 12: Trigun Chand Thakur vs. State of Bihar (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a management committee of a private school is considered “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Trigun Chand Thakur vs. State of Bihar &

Supreme Court Clarifies Status of Private School Management Committees Under Article 12: Trigun Chand Thakur vs. State of Bihar (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court rules on Contempt Petition regarding Construction near Jantar Mantar: Shiv Darshan Singh vs. Rakesh Tiwari (2019) INSC 697 (9 July 2019)

/ Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 with Section 20A, Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 with Section 38, Contempt of Court, Indira Banerjee, Judges, Prohibited Area, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Addresses Contempt in Jantar Mantar Construction Case Date of the Judgment: 9 July 2019 Citation: 2019 INSC 697 Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J. and Indira Banerjee, J. Can authorities be held in contempt for not demolishing a structure near a protected monument, even if no explicit demolition order was issued? The Supreme Court

Supreme Court rules on Contempt Petition regarding Construction near Jantar Mantar: Shiv Darshan Singh vs. Rakesh Tiwari (2019) INSC 697 (9 July 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles Sales Tax Exemption dispute after Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Lafarge Dealers Association (2019) INSC 707 (09 July 2019)

/ Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 with Section 8(5), Constitution of India, Constitution of India with Article 286, Judges, Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 with Section 12, Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000, Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000 with Section 78, Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000 with Section 79, Ranjan Gogoi, S. Abdul Nazeer, Sales Tax Exemption, Sanjiv Khanna

Supreme Court Clarifies Sales Tax Exemption Post Madhya Pradesh Bifurcation Date of the Judgment: 09 July 2019 Citation: (2019) INSC 707 Judges: Ranjan Gogoi, CJI, S. Abdul Nazeer, J., Sanjiv Khanna, J. Can the benefit of sales tax exemption granted to industrial units in the erstwhile state of Madhya Pradesh continue to be availed in

Supreme Court settles Sales Tax Exemption dispute after Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Lafarge Dealers Association (2019) INSC 707 (09 July 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies rules for ad-hoc teacher appointments in aided schools: Raman Singh Case (2019)

/ Ad-hoc Appointments, Aided Schools, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Education Law, Indira Banerjee, Judges, Regular Appointments, Service Law, Teacher Appointments, UP Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act 1982, UP Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act 1982 with Section 18

Supreme Court Rules on Ad-Hoc Teacher Appointment: Raman Singh Case (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an ad-hoc appointment in a leave vacancy can be converted to a substantive appointment upon the death of the regularly appointed candidate. CASE TYPE: Education Law, Service Law Case Name: Raman Singh vs. The District Inspector of Schools, Jalaun at Orai

Supreme Court clarifies rules for ad-hoc teacher appointments in aided schools: Raman Singh Case (2019) Read Post »

Summary Court Martial Powers: Supreme Court clarifies procedure in Randhir Singh vs Union of India (2019)

/ Army Act, 1950, Army Act, 1950 with Section 120, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 142, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Indira Banerjee, Judges, Summary Court Martial

Supreme Court on Summary Court Martial: Randhir Singh vs Union of India (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a Summary Court Martial (SCM) was validly convened when there was no grave reason for immediate action. CASE TYPE: Armed Forces Law Case Name: Randhir Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. Judgment Date: July 8, 2019 Date of

Summary Court Martial Powers: Supreme Court clarifies procedure in Randhir Singh vs Union of India (2019) Read Post »

Victim’s Right to Appeal: Supreme Court Clarifies Procedure in Acquittal Cases (5 July 2019)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 2(wa), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 372, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 452, Judges, K.M. Joseph, Offences Against Human Body, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Victim's Right to Appeal

Victim’s Right to Appeal: Supreme Court Clarifies Procedure in Acquittal Cases Date of the Judgment: 5 July 2019 Citation: Crl.Appeal No.979/2019 Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph Can a victim appeal an acquittal order even if the State’s appeal is dismissed? The Supreme Court addressed this crucial question

Victim’s Right to Appeal: Supreme Court Clarifies Procedure in Acquittal Cases (5 July 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Reservation Policy: Age Relaxation and General Category Migration in Public Service Recruitment (4 July 2019)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 16(4), Gujarat Civil Services Rules, 1967 with Rule 8(2), Indira Banerjee, Judges, Reservation Policy, S. Abdul Nazeer, Service Law

Supreme Court Clarifies Reservation Policy: Age Relaxation and General Category Migration Date of the Judgment: 4 July 2019 Citation: Civil Appeal No. 5185 of 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 3938 of 2018) Judges: S. Abdul Nazeer, J. and Indira Banerjee, J. Can a candidate who uses age relaxation as a member of a

Supreme Court Clarifies Reservation Policy: Age Relaxation and General Category Migration in Public Service Recruitment (4 July 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder & Robbery Case: Ramesh Dasu Chauhan vs. State of Maharashtra (2019)

/ Deepak Gupta, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 27, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 392, Judges, Surya Kant

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder & Robbery Case: Ramesh Dasu Chauhan vs. State of Maharashtra (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether circumstantial evidence was sufficient to uphold the conviction of the accused for murder and robbery. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: Ramesh Dasu Chauhan and Another vs. The State of Maharashtra [Judgment Date]: 04 July

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder & Robbery Case: Ramesh Dasu Chauhan vs. State of Maharashtra (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Mining Regulations in Meghalaya Tribal Areas: State of Meghalaya vs. All Dimasa Students Union (2019) INSC 709 (03 July 2019)

/ Ashok Bhushan, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 244(2), Constitutional Law with Article 275(1), Judges, K.M. Joseph, Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 with Section 21, Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 with Section 4, Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 with Section 5, National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 with Section 14, National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 with Section 15, National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 with Section 2(m), Sixth Schedule of the Constitution of India

Supreme Court Clarifies Mining Regulations in Meghalaya Tribal Areas Date of the Judgment: 03 July 2019 Citation: (2019) INSC 709 Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., K.M. Joseph, J. Can tribal communities in Meghalaya mine coal on their land without a mining lease? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question, clarifying the applicability of

Supreme Court Clarifies Mining Regulations in Meghalaya Tribal Areas: State of Meghalaya vs. All Dimasa Students Union (2019) INSC 709 (03 July 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court permits Airman to continue Bank Job despite procedural lapse: Amit Kumar Roy vs. Union of India (2019)

/ Armed Forces, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 142, Constitutional Law with Article 33, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Fundamental Rights, Hemant Gupta, Judges, Service Law, Service Law with Air Force Act 1950, Service Law with Air Force Order 14/2008

Supreme Court permits Airman to continue Bank Job despite procedural lapse: Amit Kumar Roy vs. Union of India (2019) Date of the Judgment: 03 July 2019 Citation: Amit Kumar Roy vs. Union of India & Ors, Civil Appeal Nos 4605 – 4606 of 2019 (D No 27372/2015) Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Hemant

Supreme Court permits Airman to continue Bank Job despite procedural lapse: Amit Kumar Roy vs. Union of India (2019) Read Post »

Scroll to Top