Supreme Court held that mere determination of the status of a candidate as to whether he/she falls within the creamy layer or the non-creamy layer of the OBCs cannot be decided solely on the basis of the income of their parents.
The Court held that the petitioner had already brought the matter to the authorities and declined to issue a mandamus. It expressed confidence that authorities would consider earlier observations while formulating a model policy.
The Supreme Court held that candidates with benchmark disabilities could be considered for Group C posts identified as suitable under a 2021 notification. Authorities were directed to process their dossiers and ensure appointment.
The Supreme Court upheld the deletion of Section 14A disallowance after finding that the Assessing Officer did not record dissatisfaction with the assessee’s computation before invoking Rule 8D.
The Supreme Court cancelled anticipatory bail after finding that investigation records and witness statements indicated a prima facie offence under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a petition challenging the exemption of Muslim gifts from compulsory registration under Section 129 of the Transfer of Property Act. The Court directed the petitioners to approach the Law Commission of India for possible legislative changes.
The Supreme Court disposed of the petitions and allowed the parties to assist the High Court where challenges to CPCB guidelines on idol manufacture and immersion are pending.
The Court refused to mandate NAT testing for blood screening, stating that the issue involves policy decisions and financial implications that must be assessed by governments and domain experts.
The Supreme Court refused to condone a delay of 262 days in filing the Special Leave Petition and found no merit for interference. The dismissal left intact the order quashing the reassessment notice under Section 148.
The Supreme Court upheld the invalidation of an assessment order issued in the name of a company that had merged and ceased to exist. The Court held that proceedings must be initiated against the transferee company.
