advocatemmmohan
division bench
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
