Judgments

Issue: The grievance of the Petitioner is that the extension of tenure of the second Respondent to three years is contrary to Section 25 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 Act. Judgment – “We upheld the power of the Union of India to extend the tenure of Director of Enforcement beyond the period of […]

Facts: Appellant is state and respondent is a licensee of department of excise duty. Appellant amended a new rule and tried applying retrospectively. High Court ordered in favour of respondent. Hence this Appeal. Observation: It is evident that when the state-initiated recovery proceedings it did not give credit of the amounts collected under the head

Tag – Paying revenue doesn’t amount to be in possession of the property. Facts: That appellant claims to be in possession of suit property for 40 years. That respondent claims at present the respondent is in possession of the suit property. Appellant went to district court by filing perpetual injunction. District court after reviewing the

Facts: Appellant vide sale deed bought a two storied building from respondent and appellant was aggrieved that respondent started construction in 2nd floor of that building by misrepresentation of facts. After several litigations, HC held that dispute pertains to cancellation of building plans and demolishing are all falls under jurisdiction of civil court. Judgment: SC

Facts: Two parties entered on partnership agreement. Out of Appellant before Supreme Court alleges that an FIR was lodged containing serious allegations of section 405, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 against respondent and in that way single judge through an oral direction held not to arrest the respondent until next date of hearing. Hence

Facts- 1.BHIMRAO RAMCHANDRA KHALATE (APPELLANT) appeal before this Court aggrieved against the suit for redemption of the mortgage property. The plaintiff was the owner of 20 gunthas of agricultural land situated in village Khunte. The plaintiff was in need of money so he borrowed  from defendant No. 1 by executing a document titled “conditional sale

Facts– 1- An Election was put aside by the High Court of Karnataka on the ground of illegitimate rejection of nomination papers of the Election Petitioner. 2- The High Court of Karnataka also conducted initiation of prosecution under Section 193 of IPC against the Returning Officer for giving false evidence and contradictory statements. Observation by

Facts- Uttam Singh’s ( respondent ) father was working in the irrigation department. He filed a petition in the Allahabad High Court aiming to get the post of tubewell operator under the Uttar Pradesh recruitment of dependents of government servants dying in harness rules 1974.  But it was rejected. Also the Court suggested that the

Facts- KRISHNA GOPAL TIWARY & ANR (APPELLANT) are employees of Coal India Limited, claim to declare the applicability of Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2010 from 1.1.2007 was declined. Government of India approved enhancement of gratuity to the executives and non-unionized supervisors of Central Sector enterprises. The ceiling of the gratuity was raised to Rs.10

The aforementioned question can be answered righteously by scrutinizing and analysing a landmark judgment, namely “Suman Chadha & Anr. vs Central Bank of India on 9 August, 2021, Bench: Hon’Ble Ms. Banerjee, V. Ramasubramanian. The same has been done as follows. Background: After being seen as liable of contempt of Court, the petitioners who are