(1)
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS .....Appellant Vs.
N. MURUGESAN ETC. .....Respondent D.D
07/10/2021
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Service Law – Re-appointment – Suitability – Appellant found respondent unsuitable for re-appointment, approved by other authorities – Appointment order lacked automatic extension provision – Explicit order requiring suitability for re-appointment considered – Court not expected to substitute its view – Respondent not entitled to extension or consequential...
(2)
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS .....Appellant Vs.
SURJI DEVI .....Respondent D.D
07/10/2021
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Termination of Service – Delay and Laches – Late husband of the respondent, Rameshwar Lal, was terminated from service on 16.12.1996 – He appealed, but during pendency, he passed away in 2009 – Respondent filed a writ petition in 2012, 15 years post-termination and 13 years after he would have retired – High Court's Single Judge quashed termination and granted ben...
(3)
NITABEN DINESH PATEL .....Appellant Vs.
DINESH DAHYABHAI PATEL .....Respondent D.D
07/10/2021
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Hindu Marriage Act – Counterclaim – Section 23A permits the respondent in divorce, judicial separation, or restitution of conjugal rights proceedings to make a counterclaim for relief on the grounds of the petitioner’s adultery, cruelty, or desertion – Counterclaim can only include reliefs under Sections 9 to 13 of the Act – Reliefs against third parties or declaratio...
(4)
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER .....Appellant Vs.
OMKAR NATH DHAR (D) THROUGH L.RS. .....Respondent D.D
07/10/2021
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Government Accommodation – Retention by Retired Employees – Kashmiri Migrants – Supreme Court addresses the policy allowing retired government employees who are Kashmiri Migrants to retain government accommodation. The Court emphasizes that such occupation should not exceed three years post-retirement. It rules that indefinite retention is not justified and stresses the importanc...
(5)
V. PRABHAKARA .....Appellant Vs.
BASAVARAJ K. (DEAD) BY LR. AND ANOTHER .....Respondent D.D
07/10/2021
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Wills – Validity and Suspicious Circumstances – The Supreme Court underscores that mere exclusion of a beneficiary’s siblings from a will does not inherently create suspicion unless other circumstances support such an inference. The Court affirmed the validity of Exhibit P4, a registered will, properly executed and attested by the beneficiary’s siblings, dismissing concerns...
(6)
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS .....Appellant Vs.
ILMO DEVI AND ANOTHER .....Respondent D.D
07/10/2021
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Regularization of Part-Time Employees – Entitlement and Policy – Part-time employees cannot claim regularization or permanent status as they are not working against sanctioned posts. The Supreme Court reiterates that regularization can only occur as per the State/Government's regularization policy and not as a matter of right. The High Court's direction to create and sanction p...
(7)
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI .....Appellant Vs.
ANKITA SINHA AND OTHERS .....Respondent D.D
07/10/2021
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Suo Motu Jurisdiction of NGT – Legislative Intent and Interpretation – The Supreme Court held that the NGT is vested with suo motu power in the discharge of its functions under the NGT Act. The Court emphasized that the NGT Act, when read as a whole, provides the NGT with the leeway to go beyond a mere adjudicatory role. The Parliament’s intention was to create a multifunctional ...
(8)
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI .....Appellant Vs.
MOHAMMED MEERAN SHAHUL HAMEED .....Respondent D.D
07/10/2021
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Income Tax Act – Section 263 – Period of Limitation for Revisional Orders – The Supreme Court clarifies that under Section 263(2) of the Income Tax Act, the period of limitation for making an order is two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. The term "made" is used in Section 263(2), not "received" or &qu...
(9)
SGS INDIA LIMITED .....Appellant Vs.
DOLPHIN INTERNATIONAL LIMITED .....Respondent D.D
06/10/2021
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Deficiency in Service – Onus of Proof – The Supreme Court held that the onus of proving deficiency in service lies with the complainant in complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Without proof of deficiency, the opposite party cannot be held responsible. The Court reiterated that the burden of proof shifts only after the complainant establishes a prima facie case of deficie...