Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta High Court Calcutta High Court Rules: ‘NPA Classification Must Be Borrower-Wise, Not Account-Wise High Court of Kerala Denies Applications for Impleading Additional Defendants in Land Dispute Case Andhra Pradesh High Court Declares Vice Chancellor’s Reappointment Void Ab Initio Due to UGC Regulation Violations Rajasthan High Court Grants Interim Protection Against JDA's Demolition Drive Court Condemns Concealment: ‘Attempt to Mislead Court by Concealing Facts Is Deprecable No Enlargement of Coparcenary Shares After Final Decree in Partition Suit: Madras High Court Property Ownership Does Not Negate Right to Maintenance: Calcutta High Court Original Patta Was Never Received: Kerala High Court Dismisses Land Dispute, Orders Investigation Clear Title and Continuous Possession Are Crucial in Property Disputes: Madras High Court Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses Must Be Enforced if Validly Agreed Upon: Punjab and Haryana High Court

(1) AVISHEK GOENKA .....Appellant Vs. RESPONDENT(S): UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND ANOTHER .....Respondent D.D 27/04/2012

Public Safety – Prohibition of Black Films – The Supreme Court held that the use of black films on vehicle windows and windshields is impermissible under Rule 100(2) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, which specifies that the Visual Light Transmission (VLT) of the safety glasses must not be less than 70% for windshields and 50% for side windows. The Court ruled that any material applie...

REPORTABLE # WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 265 OF 2011 (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India) Docid 2012 LEJ Civil SC 469777

(2) AVISHEK GOENKA .....Appellant Vs. RESPONDENT(S): UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND ANOTHER .....Respondent D.D 27/04/2012

Telecom Regulation – Subscriber Verification – The Supreme Court addressed the issue of improper subscriber verification by telecom service providers, emphasizing the need for strict adherence to guidelines to ensure national security. The Court directed the constitution of a Joint Expert Committee to resolve discrepancies between the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) and the Telecom Regu...

REPORTABLE # WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 285 OF 2010 (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India) Docid 2012 LEJ Civil SC 538400

(3) U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. .....Appellant Vs. RESPONDENT(S): RAJESH KUMAR AND OTHERS .....Respondent APPELLANT(S): STATE OF U.P. .....Appellant VERSUS RESPONDENT(S): BRIJ BHUSHAN SHARMA AND ANOTHER .....Respondent D.D 27/04/2012

Reservation in Promotions – Constitutional Validity – The Supreme Court dealt with the challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 3(7) of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 and Rule 8A of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991. The challenge was based on the grounds of non-com...

REPORTABLE # CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2608 OF 2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4009 OF 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4022 OF 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4027-4029 OF 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2605, 2607, 2609, 2610, 2614, 2616, 2629, 2675, 2676, 2677, 2678, 2679, 2729, 2730, 2737 OF 2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4023 OF 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4024 OF 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4025 OF 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4691 OF 2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4697 OF 2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4699 OF 2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4026 OF 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4016 OF 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4021 OF 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4017 OF 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4018 OF 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4019 OF 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4020 OF 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4030 OF 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4031 OF 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4032 OF 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4033 OF 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4034 OF 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2622 OF 2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2611 OF 2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2612 OF 2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2613 OF 2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2623 OF 2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2624 OF 2011 CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2682-2683 OF 2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2684 OF 2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2881 OF 2011 CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2884-2885 OF 2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2886 OF 2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2908 OF 2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2909 OF 2011 CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2944-2945 OF 2011 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 66 OF 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4067 OF 2012 Docid 2012 LEJ Civil SC 367161

(4) UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND OTHERS .....Appellant Vs. RESPONDENT(S): MADHU E.V. AND ANOTHER .....Respondent D.D 26/04/2012

Pension – Eligibility on Resignation – The Supreme Court held that under Rule 19 of the BSF Rules, resignation by BSF personnel does not entitle them to pensionary benefits unless they meet the eligibility criteria under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. The Court emphasized that the minimum qualifying service for pension under the CCS (Pension) Rules is 20 years, and resignati...

REPORTABLE # CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 9647-9650 OF 2003 Docid 2012 LEJ Civil SC 114407

(5) RASHTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LTD. ...Appellant Vs. RESPONDENT(S): DEWAN CHAND RAM SARAN .....Respondent D.D 25/04/2012

Arbitration – Interpretation of Contract – The Supreme Court held that the interpretation of Clause 9.3 of the contract by the arbitrator was within jurisdiction and not amenable to correction by the courts. The clause required the contractor to bear all taxes, duties, and liabilities in connection with the discharge of his obligations under the contract, which included the service tax. The ar...

REPORTABLE # CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3905 OF 2012 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 17943 of 2008) Docid 2012 LEJ Civil SC 124186

(6) PRAKASH CHANDRA .....Appellant Vs. RESPONDENT(S): NARAYAN .....Respondent D.D 23/04/2012

Specific Performance – Hardship – The Supreme Court held that the first appellate court erred in reversing the trial court's decree for specific performance without framing an issue on the hardship to the respondent. The Court emphasized that hardship is a good defense in specific performance cases only if such defense is specifically pleaded and supported by evidence. In this case, no su...

REPORTABLE # CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8102 OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 21139 of 2007) Docid 2012 LEJ Civil SC 713233

(7) SANTOSH DEVI .....Appellant Vs. RESPONDENT(S): NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND OTHERS .....Respondent D.D 23/04/2012

Motor Accident Compensation – Enhancement – The Supreme Court enhanced the compensation awarded to the appellant by considering a reasonable increase in the income of the deceased over time, as well as an appropriate deduction for personal expenses. The Court disagreed with the Tribunal and High Court's approach of not providing for an increase in income and deducting one-third of the dec...

REPORTABLE # CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3723 OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 24489 of 2010) Docid 2012 LEJ Civil SC 109393

(8) SANGEETABEN MAHENDRABHAI PATEL .....Appellant Vs. RESPONDENT(S): STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER .....Respondent D.D 23/04/2012

Double Jeopardy – Doctrine of Autrefois Acquit/Autrefois Convict – The Supreme Court dealt with the plea of double jeopardy raised by the appellant, who argued that having been acquitted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, she could not be tried again for the same offence under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 114 IPC. The Court clarified that the protection against doub...

REPORTABLE # CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 645 OF 2012 Docid 2012 LEJ CrimSC 808336

(9) C.N. RAMAPPA GOWDA .....Appellant Vs. RESPONDENT(S): C.C. CHANDREGOWDA (DEAD) BY L.RS. AND ANOTHER .....Respondent D.D 23/04/2012

Civil Procedure – Written Statements – The Supreme Court addressed whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by remanding the case for retrial and permitting the defendants to file written statements and documents. The High Court’s decision was made despite the defendants’ failure to file written statements in the trial court even after several opportunities were granted [Paras 2-8]...

REPORTABLE # CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3710 OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 33361 of 2010) Docid 2012 LEJ Civil SC 504941