//
archives

division bench

This tag is associated with 148 posts

Service Matter – Back Door Posting – Temporarily appointed to the post of constable – show cause notice issued and service was also terminated – single judge dismissed the writ – DB allowed the writ – Apex court held that in the absence of any advertisement or selection process, the appointment of the respondent is not protected and could be validly terminated. Learned single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition while the Division Bench erred in interfering with the same. =CIVIL APPEAL NO._7392___2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.28971 of 2013) State of Bihar and Ors. … Appellant (s) Versus Chandreshwar Pathak … Respondent (s) = 2014 Aug. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41813

   Service Matter – Back Door Posting – Temporarily appointed to the post of constable – show cause notice issued and service was also terminated – single judge dismissed the writ – DB allowed the writ – Apex court held that in  the  absence  of   any advertisement or selection process, the appointment  of  the  respondent  is not … Continue reading

Bar Council Elections for the post of Chairmen – Single judge declared the appellant as winning candidate – D.B. reversed – Apex court order for fresh elections by setting aside the orders of DB bench as the rules not framed properly = Yogendra Singh Tomar … Appellant Versus Bar Council for Uttarakhand and others …Respondents= Published in /Cited in / Reported in judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41099

Bar Council Elections for the post of Chairmen – Single judge declared the appellant as winning candidate – D.B. reversed – Apex court order for fresh elections by setting aside the orders of DB bench as the rules not framed properly  =  Thereafter, the  learned  single  Judge  allowed  the  writ  petition  by    holding that … Continue reading

Sec.466 Company Act – permission of company court for eviction suit against a winding up company from a leased premises – earlier orders when not on merit – a subsequent order granting permission for filing eviction suit – Reversed by D.B. bench on the point of resjudicate – Apex court allowed the appeal and set aside the D.B. bench holding that there is no Res-judicata = Erach Boman Khavar … Appellant Versus Tukaram Shridhar Bhat and another …Respondents = Published in / Cited in / Reported in judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41074

Sec.466 Company Act – permission of company court for eviction suit against a     winding up company from a leased premises – earlier orders when not on merit – a subsequent order granting permission for filing eviction suit – Reversed by D.B. bench on the point of resjudicate – Apex court allowed the appeal … Continue reading

Sec.377 of I.P.C. – constitutionally valid – Unnatural offences – Same sex marriage – Bombay high court declared the sec.377 as unconstitutional – Apex court set aside the orders of Bombay high court – and held that sec.377 is a valid one – marriage between same sex is an offence under sec.377 still – Notwithstanding this verdict, the competent legislature shall be free to consider the desirability and propriety of deleting Section 377 IPC from the statute book or amend the same as per the suggestion made by the Attorney General. = Suresh Kumar Koushal and another … Appellants versus NAZ Foundation and others … Respondents = published in/ Cited in / Reported in judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41070

Sec.377 of I.P.C. – constitutionally valid – Unnatural offences – Same sex marriage –     Bombay high court declared the sec.377 as unconstitutional – Apex court set aside the orders of Bombay high court – and held that  sec.377 is a valid one – marriage between same sex is an offence under sec.377 still … Continue reading

Allotment of civic amenity sites = Section 38A of the BDA Act, 1976 a civic amenity site could not have been leased, sold or otherwise transferred for a purpose other than the one for which such area is reserved. Since the site in question was earmarked/reserved for “bank”, it could not have been allotted for use as a petrol pump. – High court declared the allotment as null and void- Apex court confirmed the same and dismiss the appeal = Civil Appeal No.10747/2013 @ Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).31690/2011 PURUSHOTHAM Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. Respondent(s) = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41037

 Allotment of civic amenity sites =  Section 38A of the BDA Act, 1976  a civic amenity site could  not          have been leased, sold or otherwise transferred for a purpose other         than the one for which such area is reserved.  Since  the  site  in         … Continue reading

Cancellation of Railway tender on technical point is not illegal nor arbitrary to interfere by courts – Apex court confirm the judgement of division bench = Maa Binda Express Carrier and Anr. …Appellants Versus Northeast Frontier Railway and Ors. …Respondents = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41031

Cancellation of Railway tender on technical point is not illegal nor arbitrary to interfere by     courts – Apex court confirm the judgement of division bench =       invited tenders for the grant of a three year lease of  23   tonnes of space in VPH (Parcel Van) on train No.15960/15959 Kamrup  Express.   Among those who … Continue reading

Service matter = The Diploma holders after obtaining Degree , on their application , can be re-designated as Assistant engineers and while considering their promotion for Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical) – They can, therefore, be considered only against the 25% quota reserved for the Subordinate Service and not against 75% reserved for the State Service members directly recruited to that service or appointed by transfer in terms of the Rules. = apex court dismissed the appeal. = B. Thirumal …Appellant Versus Ananda Sivakumar and Ors. …Respondents = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41001

The Diploma holders after obtaining Degree , on their application , can be re-designated as Assistant engineers  and while considering their promotion for Assistant  Executive  Engineer (Electrical) –    They can, therefore, be considered  only  against  the 25% quota reserved for the Subordinate Service and not against 75%  reserved for the  State  Service  members  directly  recruited  to  that  service  or appointed by transfer … Continue reading

Interim orders in suits filed by purchasers against developer – Single Judge of High Court directing not to register any agreement in respect of the flat of appellant, which was not subject matter of the suit – Notion of Motion by appellant – Interim order recalled – Appeals – Division Bench of High Court staying operation of order of Single Judge and directing the money deposited by plaintiff and appellant with developer to the credit of one of the suits and to be invested in FD – Held: Division Bench of High Court while deciding the Notice of Motion has exceeded its power and jurisdiction in commenting on the conduct of the appellant stating that she approached the court on the basis of false and fabricated documents – When the main suits are pending, particularly, the appellant is a stranger in the pending suits, such observation is not warranted and, as such, is deleted – The developer having deposited the money as directed by High Court, it safeguards the interests of plaintiff – Trial Court directed to decide the suits on merit – Administration of justice – Strictures. = Vasanti Bhat …. Appellant(s) Versus Premlata A Agarwal & Anr. Etc. …. Respondent(s) = Published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/helddis.aspx

INTERIM ORDERS: Interim orders in suits filed by purchasers against developer – Single Judge of High Court directing not to register any agreement in respect of the flat of appellant, which was not subject matter of the suit – Notion of Motion by appellant – Interim order recalled – Appeals – Division Bench of High … Continue reading

Land Laws – Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 – ss.3 and 4(c) – Partition suit – Dismissed by civil court – Title appeal – During pendency thereof, notification issued u/s.3 of the 1956 Act – Consequence=Partition suit was decreed in lower court , appeal filed and appeal is abated due to non-bringing of legal heirs- Notification under Bihar consolidation of Holdings and prevention of Fragmentation Act 1956 published – application filed before appellant -In the present case, title appeal was pending when notification was issued u/s.3 of the 1956 Act, whereafter an application u/s.4(c) of the 1956 Act was preferred to the effect that the appeal and the suit had abated by statutory operation of law – It would have been advisable on the part of the appellate court to record a finding that the entire proceeding of the civil suit stood abated – But the appellate court directed abatement because of non-substitution of the legal heirs of one of the respondents – Hence, the suit as well as the appeal abated and resultantly the very commencement of the civil proceeding came to a naught and, therefore, findings recorded in the said proceeding became extinct – High Court did not appreciate the lis in proper perspective and held that reliance on the findings recorded by the civil court by the revisional consolidation authority under the 1956 Act could not be faulted – Said conclusion wholly erroneous – Matter remanded to High Court to decide the matter on merits on basis of the material brought before the Consolidation Authorities.= Paras Nath Rai and others ….. Appellants Versus State of Bihar and Ors. … Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/helddis.aspx

Land Laws – Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation     Act, 1956 – ss.3 and 4(c) – Partition suit – Dismissed by civil court – Title appeal – During pendency thereof, notification issued u/s.3 of the 1956 Act – Consequence – Held: Once a notification has been published u/s.3, every suit and … Continue reading

Service – matter = Disproportionate punishment to the negligence proved – Dismissal orders quashed – directed to pay retire benefits and pension as he was dismissed just 6 days prior to his retirement date = GIRISH BHUSHAN GOYAL APPELLANT Versus B.H.E.L. & ANR. RESPONDENTS = Published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40954

Service – matter = Disproportionate punishment to the negligence proved – Dismissal orders quashed – directed to pay retire benefits and pension as he was dismissed just 6  days  prior  to  his  retirement  date =   “25(1). No order imposing any of  the  major  penalties  specified  in       Clause (f), (g), (h), (i) and (j) … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,464,042 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,893 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com
Advertisements