(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...
(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...
(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...
(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...
(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...
(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...
(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...
(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...
(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]...