Supreme Court clarifies the rights of candidates in waiting lists for public service appointments: U.P. Public Service Commission vs. Uday Kumar Upadhyaya (2008)

/ Appointment, Constitutional Law, H.K. Sema, Judges, Markandey Katju, Service Law, Waiting List, Writ of Mandamus

Date of the Judgment: 14th February 2008 Citation: [Citation details will be added when available] Judges: H.K. Sema and Markandey Katju, JJ. Does being on a waiting list for a government job guarantee you the position? The Supreme Court addressed this important question in a case involving the U.P. Public Service Commission. The court clarified […]

Supreme Court clarifies the rights of candidates in waiting lists for public service appointments: U.P. Public Service Commission vs. Uday Kumar Upadhyaya (2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies evidentiary standards in murder cases based on circumstantial evidence: Benjamin vs. State (2008)

/ Harjit Singh Bedi, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 34, Judges, S.B. Sinha

Date of the Judgment: January 11, 2008 Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 76 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 863 of 2007) Judges: S.B. Sinha, J. and HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J. In a case revolving around circumstantial evidence, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether the High Court correctly upheld the conviction of

Supreme Court clarifies evidentiary standards in murder cases based on circumstantial evidence: Benjamin vs. State (2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles age limit rules for direct recruitment in civil posts: Union of India vs. Shri Ramesh Singh Rajput (2007)

/ Aftab Alam, Arijit Pasayat, Central Civil Services Rules, Judges, Service Law, Service Law with Age Limit

Date of the Judgment: December 14, 2007 Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J., Aftab Alam, J. Can the government deny appointment to a selected candidate based on a discrepancy in their date of birth records? The Supreme Court addressed this issue in a case where a candidate’s school certificate and affidavit showed different dates of birth,

Supreme Court settles age limit rules for direct recruitment in civil posts: Union of India vs. Shri Ramesh Singh Rajput (2007) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies land surrender disputes under Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms Act: State of A.P. vs. Singi Reddy Ramulu (2007)

/ Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms Act, Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms Act with Section 10(5)(a)(ii), Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, Judges, P. Sathasivam

Date of the Judgment: December 12, 2007 Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J., P. Sathasivam, J. Can a state government’s decision to accept the surrender of land be challenged if there’s a pre-existing dispute over its possession? The Supreme Court addressed this issue in a case concerning the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings)

Supreme Court clarifies land surrender disputes under Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms Act: State of A.P. vs. Singi Reddy Ramulu (2007) Read Post »

Lankeshwar Malakar and Ors. vs R. Deka and Ors.: Supreme Court Orders Re-evaluation of Property Dispute Based on Will and Gift Deed (2006)

/ Gift Deed, Judges, Markandey Katju, Property Dispute, Property Law, S.B. Sinha, Will

Introduction Date of the Judgment: 30/11/2006 Judges: S.B. Sinha & Markandey Katju Can discrepancies in property descriptions lead to a flawed judgment? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical issue in a property dispute involving a will and a gift deed. The core of the dispute revolves around the correct identification of land described

Lankeshwar Malakar and Ors. vs R. Deka and Ors.: Supreme Court Orders Re-evaluation of Property Dispute Based on Will and Gift Deed (2006) Read Post »

Supreme Court reduces sentence in assault case due to delay: Venkategowda & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka (2006)

/ A. K. Mathur, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 326, Judges, Lokeshwar Singh Panta, Unlawful Assembly

Date of the Judgment: 06/11/2006 Citation: Appeal (crl.) 851 of 2006 Judges: A. K. Mathur & Lokeshwar Singh Panta In a case involving a violent assault, the Supreme Court of India addressed the question of whether the High Court was justified in convicting the accused based on the evidence presented, and also considered the impact

Supreme Court reduces sentence in assault case due to delay: Venkategowda & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka (2006) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles the importance of civil court findings in departmental proceedings: Jasbir Singh vs. Punjab & Sind Bank (2006)

/ Banking Law, Departmental Proceedings, Embezzlement, Fraud, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 409, Judges, Markandey Katju, Reinstatement, S.B. Sinha, Service Law

Introduction Date of the Judgment: 31st October 2006 Citation: Appeal (civil) 8046 of 2004 Judges: S.B. Sinha and Markandey Katju What happens when a bank employee is accused of fraud, acquitted in criminal court, but then faces departmental proceedings? The Supreme Court addressed this critical intersection of civil and service law in the case of

Supreme Court settles the importance of civil court findings in departmental proceedings: Jasbir Singh vs. Punjab & Sind Bank (2006) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles applicability of Sections 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act to daily-wage employees: Jaipur Development Authority vs. Ram Sahai & Anr. (2006)

/ Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with Section 25G, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with Section 25H, Judges, Labour Law, Markandey Katju, Re-employment, Retrenchment, S.B. Sinha

Introduction Date of the Judgment: 31st October 2006 Citation: [2006] INSC 514 Judges: S.B. Sinha and Markandey Katju When a worker is hired on a daily-wage basis, are they entitled to the same protections as permanent employees if their services are terminated? The Supreme Court of India addressed this issue in a case involving the

Supreme Court settles applicability of Sections 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act to daily-wage employees: Jaipur Development Authority vs. Ram Sahai & Anr. (2006) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies deposit timelines under the Chennai City Tenants’ Protection Act in eviction cases: Thirunavukarasu Mudaliar vs. Gopal Naidu (2006)

/ Altamas Kabir, B.P. Singh, Chennai City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921, Chennai City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921 with Section 9, Judges

Date of the Judgment: 19th October 2006 Citation: Appeal (civil) 4705 of 1999 Judges: B.P. Singh and Altamas Kabir Can a tenant seeking to purchase land under the Chennai City Tenants’ Protection Act, 1921, ignore court-ordered deposit deadlines if they challenge the order in higher courts? The Supreme Court addressed this critical question in the

Supreme Court clarifies deposit timelines under the Chennai City Tenants’ Protection Act in eviction cases: Thirunavukarasu Mudaliar vs. Gopal Naidu (2006) Read Post »

Supreme Court sets aside dismissal order after exoneration in departmental inquiry: Prithipal Singh vs. State of Punjab (2006)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 311, Dalveer Bhandari, Departmental Inquiry, Dismissal, Judges, S.B. Sinha, Service Law

Introduction Date of the Judgment: 19th October 2006 Citation: Appeal (civil) 5226 of 2004 Judges: S.B. Sinha, J. and Dalveer Bhandari, J. Can an employee’s dismissal be upheld when they were later cleared of the charges in a departmental inquiry? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in the case of Prithipal Singh

Supreme Court sets aside dismissal order after exoneration in departmental inquiry: Prithipal Singh vs. State of Punjab (2006) Read Post »

Draughtsmen Pay Scale Revision: Supreme Court clarifies applicability of OMs in Union of India vs. S.D. Bandhopadhyay (2006)

/ Conditions of Service, Dalveer Bhandari, Government Orders, Judges, OM 13.3.1984, OM 19.10.1994, Pay Scale Revision, S.B. Sinha, Service Law

Introduction Date of the Judgment: 19/10/2006 The Supreme Court of India addressed a dispute regarding the revision of pay scales for draughtsmen working in Ordnance Factories. The central question revolved around whether these employees, having received benefits under an Office Memorandum (OM) of 1984, were further entitled to benefits under a subsequent OM of 1994.

Draughtsmen Pay Scale Revision: Supreme Court clarifies applicability of OMs in Union of India vs. S.D. Bandhopadhyay (2006) Read Post »

Police Reforms: Supreme Court Directs Implementation of Key Recommendations in Prakash Singh vs. Union of India (2006)

/ C.K. Thakker, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 142, Constitutional Law with Article 32, Fundamental Rights, Indian Police Act, 1861, Judges, P.K. Balasubramanyan, Y.K. Sabharwal

Date of the Judgment: 22nd September 2006 Citation: Writ Petition (civil) 310 of 1996 Judges: Y.K. Sabharwal, C.K. Thakker, P.K. Balasubramanyan The Supreme Court of India addressed the critical need for police reforms due to the ineffectiveness of the existing police system, which was established by the Indian Police Act, 1861. The Court’s intervention came

Police Reforms: Supreme Court Directs Implementation of Key Recommendations in Prakash Singh vs. Union of India (2006) Read Post »

Scroll to Top