Ajay Kumar Shukla Vs Arvind Rai (Supreme Court of India) Right to promotion is not considered to be a fundamental right but consideration for promotion has now been evolved as a fundamental right. In this case The plea to defend the seniority list prepared contrary to the statutory provisions on the ground of delay would […]
Ajay Kumar Shukla Vs Arvind Rai (Supreme Court of India) The present case is a case of preparation of seniority list and that too in a situation where the appellants (original writ petitioners) did not even know the marks obtained by them or their proficiency in the examination conducted by the Commission. The challenge was […]
Akshay N Patel Vs Reserve Bank of India (Supreme Court of India) Facts- The appellant has challenged the constitutionality of Clause 2(iii) of the 2020 MTT (Merchanting Trade Transactions) Guidelines by alleging a violation of his rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21. The main issue involved is RBI’s restriction to prohibit MTTs in PPE […]
On the disclosures made by the appellant with regard to his existing disease, namely diabetes mellitus II, the insurance company considered the same and issued the policy in question to the appellant. The respondent insurance company as a prudent insurer considered the details given by the appellant in the proposal form and issued the policy.
Sunil Todi & Ors. Vs State of Gujarat & Anr. (Supreme Court of India) The object of the NI Act is to enhance the acceptability of cheques and inculcate faith in the efficiency of negotiable instruments for transaction of business. The purpose of the provision would become otiose if the provision is interpreted to exclude […]
VVF (India) Limited Vs The State of Maharashtra (Supreme Court of India) While analyzing the rival submissions, it is necessary to note, at the outset, that, under the provisions of Section 26(6A), the aggregate of the amounts stipulated in the sub-clauses of the provision has to be deposited and proof of payment is required to […]
While considering the application u/s 254(2) of the Act, the Appellate Tribunal is not required to re-visit its earlier order and to go into detail on merits. The powers under Section 254(2) of the Act are only to rectify/correct any mistake apparent from the record.
SC issued directives for the adoption of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) for Tribunals. Further, directed the extension of Legal Information Management & Briefing System (LIMBS) with the IT Systems to CESTAT, ITAT and other Tribunals.
TATA Consultancy Services Limited Vs Vishal Ghisulal Jain (Supreme Court) Facts- The appellant and the Corporate Debtor entered into a Build Phase Agreement followed by a Facilities Agreement. The Facilities Agreement obligated the Corporate Debtor to provide premises with certain specifications and facilities to the appellant for conducting examinations for educational institutions. Later, a termination […]
Kewal Krishan Vs Rajesh Kumar And Ors. Etc. (Supreme Court) Payment of price is an essential part of a sale, thus sale deed executed without payment of price is void: Supreme Court In Kewal Krishan v. Rajesh Kumar & Ors. Etc. [Civil Appeal Nos. 6989-6992 of 2021 arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 2033-2036 of […]
