Supreme Court settles Railway Employee Seniority Dispute in Non-Technical Clerical Category Selection (21st October 2008)

/ Administrative Law, Administrative Law with Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, Rule 17, Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, Employee Seniority, J.M. Panchal, Judges, K.G. Balakrishnan, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 5, P. Sathasivam, Railway Law, Railway Law with Rule 303, Railway Recruitment Board (RRB)

Date of the Judgment: 21st October 2008 Judges: K.G. Balakrishnan, P. Sathasivam, J.M. Panchal Can seniority be claimed retroactively by railway employees appointed years after the initial selection process due to alleged malpractices? The Supreme Court addressed this issue in a set of appeals concerning the selection of Non-Technical Popular Clerical Category employees in the […]

Supreme Court settles Railway Employee Seniority Dispute in Non-Technical Clerical Category Selection (21st October 2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Abolishment of Media Prabhari Post: State of U.P. vs. Diwakar Khare (2008)

/ Abolition of Post, Aftab Alam, Interim Relief, Judges, Service Law, Tarun Chatterjee

Introduction Date of the Judgment: October 03, 2008 Citation: [Not Available in Source] Judges: Tarun Chatterjee, J., Aftab Alam, J. Can a High Court grant interim relief allowing someone to continue in a post that has already been abolished by the government? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in the case of

Supreme Court Upholds Abolishment of Media Prabhari Post: State of U.P. vs. Diwakar Khare (2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles criteria for Professor appointment in Universities: B.C. Mylarappa vs. Dr. R. Venkatasubbaiah (2008)

/ Appointment, Education Law, Harjit Singh Bedi, Judges, Professor Eligibility, Research Experience, Seniority, Service Law, Tarun Chatterjee, University Appointments

“`html Date of the Judgment: October 03, 2008 Citation: [Not Available in Source] Judges: Tarun Chatterjee, J., Harjit Singh Bedi, J. Can prior experience as a Research Assistant be considered equivalent to postgraduate teaching experience when applying for the post of Professor in a University? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in

Supreme Court settles criteria for Professor appointment in Universities: B.C. Mylarappa vs. Dr. R. Venkatasubbaiah (2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Bribery Case: State of A.P. vs. P. Satyanarayana Murthy (2008)

/ Aftab Alam, Arijit Pasayat, Bribery, Corruption, Criminal Law, Judges, P. Sathasivam, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with Section 13(1)(d)(i), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with Section 13(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with Section 20

Introduction Date of the Judgment: October 3, 2008 Citation: [INSC Citation to be added when available] Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J., P. Sathasivam, J., Aftab Alam, J. Can a High Court overturn a trial court’s conviction based on a differing view of evidence when a public servant is caught red-handed accepting a bribe? The Supreme

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Bribery Case: State of A.P. vs. P. Satyanarayana Murthy (2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles procedure for age determination of juvenile offenders in criminal cases: Babloo Pasi vs. State of Jharkhand (2008)

/ C.K. Thakker, D.K. Jain, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 35, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 304B, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 306, Judges, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 with Section 49, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 with Section 53

Date of the Judgment: October 3, 2008 Citation: [Not Available in Source] Judges: C.K. Thakker, J., D.K. Jain, J. When an accused claims to be a juvenile, how should courts determine their age? The Supreme Court addressed this critical question in Babloo Pasi vs. State of Jharkhand. The case clarifies the procedure for determining the

Supreme Court settles procedure for age determination of juvenile offenders in criminal cases: Babloo Pasi vs. State of Jharkhand (2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court allows release of properties in full settlement of dues: C.R. Patil vs. State of Gujarat (2008)

/ C.K. Thakker, Contract Law, D. K. Jain, Enforceability of Contracts, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Judges, Settlement Agreements

Date of the Judgment: October 3, 2008 Judges: C.K. Thakker, J., D. K. Jain, J. The Supreme Court addressed the issue of releasing properties attached as collateral after a full and final settlement (One Time Settlement – OTS) had been reached and honored by the appellant. This case examines the implications of such settlements on

Supreme Court allows release of properties in full settlement of dues: C.R. Patil vs. State of Gujarat (2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of power to arrest under Customs Act, 1962: Union of India vs. Padam Narain Aggarwal (October 3, 2008)

/ C.K. Thakker, Code of Criminal Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 438, Customs Act, 1962, D.K. Jain, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 174, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 175, Judges, Section 104, Customs Act, 1962, Section 108, Customs Act, 1962

Introduction Date of the Judgment: October 3, 2008 Judges: C.K. Thakker, J., D.K. Jain, J. Can customs officials arrest someone without prior notice if they suspect a non-bailable offense? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a case concerning the extent of powers under the Customs Act, 1962. This judgment clarifies the safeguards and limitations

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of power to arrest under Customs Act, 1962: Union of India vs. Padam Narain Aggarwal (October 3, 2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles the status of part-time employees under Section 2(s) and 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act: Div. Manager, New India Assurance Co.Ltd. vs. A. Sankaralingam (2008)

/ Harjit Singh Bedi, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with Section 2(s), Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with Section 25B, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with Section 25F, Judges, Tarun Chatterjee

Introduction Date of the Judgment: October 03, 2008 Citation: Civil Appeal No. 4445 of 2006 Judges: Tarun Chatterjee, J., Harjit Singh Bedi, J. Does a part-time employee qualify as a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, entitling them to protection against unlawful retrenchment? The Supreme Court addressed this critical question in the case of Div.

Supreme Court settles the status of part-time employees under Section 2(s) and 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act: Div. Manager, New India Assurance Co.Ltd. vs. A. Sankaralingam (2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies “Unfair Trade Practice” under MRTP Act: KLM Royal Dutch Airlines Case (October 3, 2008)

/ Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Deficiency in Service, Judges, Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 with Section 36A, Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 with Section 48C, Mukundakam Sharma, Tarun Chatterjee, Unfair Trade Practice

Date of the Judgment: October 3, 2008 Citation: Civil Appeal Nos. 815-816 of 2002 Judges: Tarun Chatterjee, J., Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J. What constitutes an unfair trade practice under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (MRTP Act)? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a case involving KLM Royal Dutch Airlines and a

Supreme Court clarifies “Unfair Trade Practice” under MRTP Act: KLM Royal Dutch Airlines Case (October 3, 2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles promotion rules for LDCs and UDCs in District Courts: Rajinder Pal Singh Lamba vs. Suraj Bhan (2008)

/ Delay and Laches, Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, Judges, Promotion, Punjab Courts Act, 1918, Punjab Courts Act, 1918 with Section 35(3), R.V. Raveendran, Retrospective Promotion, Service Law

Introduction Date of the Judgment: October 3, 2008 Judges: Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J., R.V. Raveendran J. Does a delay in seeking a promotion nullify a legitimate claim under statutory service rules? The Supreme Court in Rajinder Pal Singh Lamba vs. Suraj Bhan examined appeals against a Delhi High Court order concerning the promotion of Lower

Supreme Court settles promotion rules for LDCs and UDCs in District Courts: Rajinder Pal Singh Lamba vs. Suraj Bhan (2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court sets aside High Court order on framing of charges in Cheating and Criminal Breach of Trust case: Sanghi Brothers vs. Sanjay Choudhary (2008)

/ Arijit Pasayat, Code of Criminal Procedure, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 406, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 420, Judges, Mukundakam Sharma, Offences Against Property

Date of the Judgment: October 3, 2008 Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 1578 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1339 of 2007) Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J., Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J. The Supreme Court addressed the question of whether the High Court was correct in interfering with the trial court’s order to frame charges

Supreme Court sets aside High Court order on framing of charges in Cheating and Criminal Breach of Trust case: Sanghi Brothers vs. Sanjay Choudhary (2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the admissibility of defence material during charge framing: Rukmini Narvekar vs. Vijaya Satardekar (2008)

/ Altamas Kabir, Criminal Procedure Code, Criminal Procedure Code with Section 227, Criminal Procedure Code with Section 482, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 409, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 420, Judges, Markandey Katju

Date of the Judgment: October 3, 2008 Citation: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1576-1577 OF 2008 Judges: Markandey Katju, J. and Altamas Kabir, J. Can a court consider defence materials while framing charges in a criminal case? The Supreme Court addressed this crucial question in Rukmini Narvekar vs. Vijaya Satardekar, a case involving allegations of fraud and misrepresentation

Supreme Court clarifies the admissibility of defence material during charge framing: Rukmini Narvekar vs. Vijaya Satardekar (2008) Read Post »

Scroll to Top