Esheria India Case Law
Sign in
India Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

India Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
0 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter India case law

Results update automatically as you type.

India decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Constitutional law

ABHISHEK SHARMA versus THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR & ORS.

Section 3(b) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 insofar as it excludes employees appointed on an academic arrangement basis from consideration for regularisation despite fulfilment of the conditions under Section 5 is unconstitutional and violative of Article 14; once the statutory conditions under Section 5(i)–(v) are satisfied the nomenclature of initial appointment is irrelevant and the State must consider such employees for regularisation under Section 5.

Source excerpt

  • Article 14
  • Article 16
  • Reasonable classification
  • Regularisation of employees
  • Academic arrangement
  • Contractual appointments
Read case analysis
Service law

K. RAJAIAH versus THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

The Inquiry Officer’s finding that the Medical Certificate (Ex. P-7) was not genuine was perverse and not supported by credible evidence because (i) the doctor admitted treating the appellant, owning the letterhead and the rubber stamp, (ii) disputed and undisputed signatures were not properly compared and were only broadly similar, and (iii) the Inquiry Officer ought to have referred the disputed handwriting to an expert before concluding fabrication. Consequently the forgery charge was not proved, the disciplinary findings could not be sustained, and the dismissal was set aside with directi…

Source excerpt

  • Disciplinary proceedings
  • Forgery
  • Handwriting verification
  • Reinstatement
  • Penalty assessment
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

SUJATA BORA versus COAL INDIA LIMITED & ORS.

The appellant was wrongly denied employment under the 2019 notification; AIIMS medical board found 57% disability (above benchmark 40%), rendering her eligible for appointment in the reserved quota; the Division Bench erred in setting aside the Single Judge's order on the ground of panel expiry; the Court directed creation of a supernumerary post and directed Coal India Limited to provide a suitable position and reasonable accommodations (desk job with separate computer and keyboard as per universal design) and to post the appellant at North Eastern Coalfields, Margherita, Tinsukia, Assam, ex…

Source excerpt

  • Reasonable accommodation
  • Multiple disability
  • Benchmark disability
  • Intersectionality of disability and gender
  • Corporate social responsibility (csr)
  • Recruitment and medical examination
Read case analysis
Service law

THE DIRECTOR OF TOWN PANCHAYAT & ORS. versus M. JAYABAL & ANR. ETC.

Compassionate appointment is a humanitarian concession and not a matter of right; once a dependent is offered and accepts a compassionate appointment the purpose is served and no subsequent claim for a higher post arises even if the dependent is eligible; belated claims are barred by delay and laches; parity claims based on illegal grants to others cannot be enforced. Accordingly the High Court orders directing appointment to a higher post were erroneous and set aside.

Source excerpt

  • Compassionate appointment
  • Eligibility for higher post on compassionate grounds
  • Delay and laches
  • Negative discrimination
  • Parity claims
Read case analysis
Sexual harassment (posh act)

DR. SOHAIL MALIK versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

The phrase 'where the respondent is an employee' in s.11 of the POSH Act is a procedural contingency directing the ICC to apply service rules applicable to the respondent and does not restrict jurisdiction to the ICC of the respondent's workplace; an ICC constituted at the aggrieved woman's workplace can conduct the preliminary/fact-finding inquiry into complaints against a respondent employed in a different department, after which the ICC's report/recommendations are to be transmitted to the respondent's employer who may initiate disciplinary proceedings under applicable service rules (OM da…

Source excerpt

  • Jurisdiction of internal complaints committee (icc)
  • Interpretation of section 11 posh act
  • Definition of workplace (s.2(o))
  • Inquiry report and employer action (s.13)
  • Duties of employer (s.19)
  • Role of icc and om dated 16.07.2015
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

K. UMADEVI versus GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.

The Supreme Court held that the appellant is entitled to maternity leave under FR 101(a) because her two biological children from a prior marriage were born before her entry into service and are in the custody of their father; the two‑child policy and the object of maternity benefit must be harmonized purposively, and Deepika Singh supports granting maternity leave in such circumstances; the Division Bench decision denying leave was set aside and maternity benefits were to be released to the appellant within two months.

Source excerpt

  • Maternity leave
  • Maternity benefit
  • Reproductive rights
  • Right to health
  • Right to privacy
  • Two child norm
Read case analysis
Contract law

VIJAYA BANK & ANR. versus PRASHANT B NARNAWARE

Clause 11(k), imposing a minimum three-year service term with a Rs.2 lakh liquidated damages obligation during the subsistence of the employment contract, was held not to amount to a restraint of trade under Section 27 and not to be opposed to public policy under Section 23 or Articles 14/19, because the restriction was in furtherance of the employment contract, justified by legitimate employer interests (retention, recruitment costs and managerial continuity) and was not unconscionable or disproportionate in the factual matrix; accordingly the High Court's quashing of the clause was set asid…

Source excerpt

  • Restrictive covenant
  • Restraint of trade
  • Public policy
  • Liquidated damages
  • Standard form contract
  • Appointment letter
Read case analysis
Contract law

RAKESH KUMAR VERMA versus HDFC BANK LTD.

An exclusive jurisdiction clause in an employment/appointment letter is valid and enforceable provided three conditions are met: (a) it does not absolutely restrict a party from enforcing rights contrary to Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, (b) the court designated must be competent to entertain the suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, and (c) the parties must have impliedly or explicitly conferred jurisdiction on that court. Applying these principles, the courts in Mumbai had jurisdiction and the suits in Patna and Delhi ought to have been instituted in Mumbai; the Patna High Court w…

Source excerpt

  • Exclusive jurisdiction clause
  • Agreements in restraint of legal proceedings
  • Rejection of plaint
  • Return of plaint
  • Service termination
  • Revisional application
Read case analysis
Food safety regulation

CHANDRA SHEKHAR SINGH AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS

Section 22(3) of the UGC Act defines 'degree' to include Bachelor's, Master's and Doctorate degrees; Clause 2.1.3 of the FSS Rules and the recruitment advertisement did not expressly exclude Master's degrees for the listed subjects (except that Chemistry specifically required a Master's); therefore Master's degrees in the specified subjects satisfy the qualification for Food Safety Officer and the appellants were wrongly disqualified; the High Court judgments were set aside.

Source excerpt

  • Interpretation of 'degree' in statutory/advisory context
  • Qualification for appointment as food safety officer
  • Central government rule-making versus state government rule-making
  • Ugc definition of 'degree'
  • Application of food safety and standard rules, 2011 and amendment 2022
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

IN RE: RECRUITMENT OF VISUALLY IMPAIRED IN JUDICIAL SERVICES versus

Visually impaired persons who possess the requisite educational qualifications are not 'unsuitable' for judicial service; Rule 6A of the MP Judicial Service Rules, 1994 is struck down insofar as it excludes visually impaired and low vision candidates; the proviso to Rule 7 requiring either three years practice or 70% in first attempt is struck down in its application to PwD candidates (they remain subject to educational qualifications but not to the first-attempt/three-year practice requirement); relaxation of qualifying/cut-off marks and provision of reasonable accommodation are permissible…

Source excerpt

  • Reasonable accommodation
  • Reservation in public employment
  • Indirect discrimination
  • Eligibility and suitability for judicial service
  • Separate cut-off marks for reserved categories
  • Relaxation of qualifying standards
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

India decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.