Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
India decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Supreme Court held that Rule 7A required disclosure of a candidate’s spouse’s properties too, and remanded the matter for fresh cognizance.
The Supreme Court held that a waitlisted candidate already recommended under the old Uttar Pradesh Act could not seek a fresh posting under Section 13(4) after the new Act commenced.
The Supreme Court held that Indian Railways does not qualify as a deemed distribution licensee under the Electricity Act because its electric traction and distribution installations are confined to captive operational use and do not perform the statutory function of supplying electricity to consumers in an area of supply; accordingly Indian Railways is a consumer for electricity procured through open access and is liable to pay Cross-Subsidy Surcharge and Additional Surcharge; draft legislative proposals do not alter this statutory position.
Source excerpt
Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 applies to offenders sentenced only to payment of fine because 'punishment' in the Act must be read to include fine as enumerated in Section 53 IPC and Section 4 BNS; 'release' in Section 4 includes setting the offender at liberty from receiving sentence including fine; accordingly the Court granted Section 4 relief to Appellant Nos.1-3 (release on bond for one year with supervision) and Section 3 relief (release after admonition) to Appellant No.4, and directed fines be deposited as compensation and Section 12 consequences removed.
Source excerpt
The Sugarcane Growers Cooperative Societies, Bajpur and Gadarpur are not Multi-State Cooperative Societies under the 2002 Act because their principal objects, as shown by the bye-laws, are confined to promoting local canegrowers' interests within a single State; Section 103(1)'s deeming fiction does not operate to override or retrospectively unsettle valid reorganisation steps taken under Sections 87 and 93 of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000, and therefore Section 103 cannot be applied in these cases.
Source excerpt
Rule 6.2(24)(iii) of Chapter XXXII must be read with the SET prospectus and relevant government clarification; because SET is conducted subject-wise (Paper II tests PG subject specialization), the statutory requirement for SET for appointment as HSST must correspond to the subject of appointment; possession of SET in an unrelated subject does not satisfy the eligibility; appellant lacked SET in Economics and also did not have the ten years' approved high-school service required for exemption under Rule 10(4), hence he was not eligible and the High Court rightly directed consideration of respo…
Source excerpt
HWP at Tuticorin is a project/establishment constituted and operating as an adjunct or ancillary of the Department of Atomic Energy (a Central Government department) and is not a separate corporate entity; therefore its employees fall within the exclusionary clause of s.2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (being persons holding posts under the Central Government or governed by rules providing gratuity), and consequently Sections 5 and 14 of the PG Act are not attracted; the appeals are dismissed.
Source excerpt
An application under Section 29A(5) for extension of the arbitrator's mandate is maintainable even after expiry of the statutory periods under Sections 29A(1) and (3) and even after an award has been rendered during that time; an award rendered without mandate is ineffective/unenforceable but does not oust the Court's power to extend the mandate, and the Court must examine sufficient cause and may impose terms including substitution, fee reduction and costs.
Source excerpt
The Court held that the first proviso to s.3(2) is situational and operates only where notices of motion given in both Houses have been admitted in both Houses; therefore the Speaker lawfully constituted a Committee after the Rajya Sabha motion was not admitted; the Deputy Chairman was competent under Article 91 to refuse admission when the Chairman's office was vacant; the Secretary-General of the Rajya Sabha overstepped by undertaking quasi-adjudicatory scrutiny of the notice; and no relief under Article 32 was warranted as no infringement of a Fundamental Right was established.
Source excerpt
The Court held that the phrase "any widow of his son" in Section 21(vii) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 includes widows irrespective of whether they became widows before or after the death of the father-in-law, and such widows are dependants entitled to claim maintenance from the deceased father-in-law's estate under Section 22; a narrow interpretation limited to widows of predeceased sons would be linguistically unsupported, arbitrary under Article 14 and violative of Article 21, and therefore impermissible.
Source excerpt
Explore more
