Digest Of Supreme Court Cases

Service Law — Judiciary — Compulsory retirement discounting the Binding effect Report/decision of Vigilance/Disciplinary Committee:

In this case, Full Court of High Court recommended compulsory retirement of petitioner from post of Additional District & Sessions Judge for irregular deposits/withdrawal from his bank account, rejecting reports of Vigilance/Disciplinary Committee dt 17-10-2018 and 18-12-2019 exonerating him. The Supreme Court held, decision/report of Vigilance/Disciplinary Committee not binding on Full Court. On facts it […]

Service Law — Judiciary — Compulsory retirement discounting the Binding effect Report/decision of Vigilance/Disciplinary Committee: Read More »

Service Law — Reinstatement/Back Wages/Arrears — Reinstatement with back wages — Entitlement to — Principles summarized — Wrongful termination —

Entitlement to back wages: Denial of back wages to appellant CA, whose termination was found unjustified, not proper. [Pradeep v. Manganese Ore (India) Ltd., (2022) 3 SCC 683]

Service Law — Reinstatement/Back Wages/Arrears — Reinstatement with back wages — Entitlement to — Principles summarized — Wrongful termination — Read More »

Service Law — Appointment — Judicial review/Validity of appointment: Grounds for judicial review:

illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety, held, not attracted in this case. Courts in exercise of power under judicial review, held, cannot interfere with selections made by expert bodies, as in this case, by reassessing comparative merits of candidates, unless vitiated by bias, mala fides or contrary to statutory provisions. None of these vitiating factors were

Service Law — Appointment — Judicial review/Validity of appointment: Grounds for judicial review: Read More »

Election — Election Petition/Trial — Practice and Procedure for Election Trial — Affidavit/Verification:

Election petition based on allegations of corrupt practices not supported by an affidavit in Form 25, as prescribed under R. 94-A of the 1961 Rules cannot be thrown out at threshold. Non-filing of affidavit or non-filing of proper verification is technical defect which is curable by allowing candidate to file proper affidavit. [A. Manju v.

Election — Election Petition/Trial — Practice and Procedure for Election Trial — Affidavit/Verification: Read More »

Constitution of India — Art. 226 — Scope of interference in Long-standing practice in service matters

Long practice which was being followed, if not contrary to law, must be given its true importance and ordinarily is not to be interfered with in exercise of power of judicial review under Art. 226. Held, appellant can certainly be relieved for that rotation year. Appellant directed to be considered for nomination as HoD/ Director when

Constitution of India — Art. 226 — Scope of interference in Long-standing practice in service matters Read More »

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996-Ss.11,8 and 11(6-A)- Interference by the court at the referral stage-

Arbitration clause contained in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was invoked by the petitioner but was opposed on the premise that the MOU ceased to exist on and from the date of the shareholder’s agreement(SHA) which superseded the MOU and novated the same. Held, is thus non-determinable by court at the stage of reference when

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996-Ss.11,8 and 11(6-A)- Interference by the court at the referral stage- Read More »

Sign up for our newsletters

The best of Business news, in your inbox.

error: Content is protected !!

Terms And Condition

The rules of the Bar Council of India prohibit law firms from soliciting work or advertising in any manner. By clicking on ‘I AGREE’, the user acknowledges that:

  1. The user wishes to gain more information about Re Legal, its practice areas for his/her own information and use
  2. That the information provided in the website is only for personal use or reference of the visitor and is provided only on his/her specific request.
  3. That the material available for downloading on the website and other information provided on the website would not create any lawyer-client relationship.
  4. That we are not responsible for any consequence of any action taken by the user relying on material/information provided under this website.
  5. That in case the visitor has any legal issues; he or she should seek independent legal advice.

The information provided under this website is for informational purposes only and solely available at your request. It should not be interpreted as soliciting or advertising.