In a contempt jurisdiction, the court will not travel beyond the original judgment and direction; neither would it be permissible for the court to issue any supplementary or incidental directions, which were not to be found in the original judgment.
Korukonda Chalapathi Rao & Anr. Vs Korukonda Annapurna Sampath Kumar (Supreme Court of India) In the facts of this case, the contention of the appellants is that the Kharurunama dated 04.1986 merely sets out the arrangement arrived at between the brothers which is the family arrangement and it was a mere record of the past transaction and […]
Rajendra Narottamdas Sheth & Anr Vs Chandra Prakash Jain (Supreme Court) In the present case, Mr. Praveen Kumar Gupta has been given general authorisation by the Bank with respect to all the business and affairs of the Bank, including commencement of legal proceedings before any court or tribunal with respect to any demand and filing […]
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Apex court while allowing the Appeal have made distinction between ‘resignation’ and ‘voluntary retirement’ and have held that having tendered the ‘resignation’, the respondent has to suffer the consequences and now cannot be permitted to take ‘U’ turn and say that what the respondent wanted was ‘premature retirement’ and not ‘resignation’.
Malook Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others (Supreme Court of India) Facts- The petitioner claimed the benefit of ad hoc service rendered by them towards their seniority as against regularly recruited clerks appointed after them. Conclusion-The decision in Direct Recruits stands for the principle that ad hoc service cannot be counted for […]
General Manager and/or Planner/Supervisor of Accused Companies, without any specific role attributed and the role played by them in their capacity, they cannot be arrayed as an accused, more particularly they cannot be held vicariously liable for the offences committed by Accused.
Supreme Court has observed that if the signature on the cheque is admitted, then presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that the cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt will be raised. Upon such presumption being raised, it is incumbent upon the accused to rebut the same.
New Victoria Mills & Ors. Vs Shrikant Arya (Supreme Court of India) In this resignation had already been accepted on 28.05.2003 before the respondent endeavoured to withdraw the same on 01.06.2003. It has, thus, rightly been contended by the appellants that the mere delay in relieving the respondent from duties would not impact the acceptance […]
Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd. Vs State of Bihar & Ors. (Supreme Court of India) Writ petitions were filed in the High Court challenging the levy. The writ petitions were dismissed on the ground that an alternative remedy of a statutory appeal was available. An appeal against these orders was filed before this Court. The […]
National Gandhi Museum Vs Sudhir Sharma (Supreme Court) In the case of Talwara Cooperative Credit and Service Society Ltd. (supra), this Court has held that the fact whether an employee after dismissal was gainfully employed is within his special knowledge and therefore, considering the principles laid down in Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, […]
