Tag: Administrative Law

Supreme Court Curbs “Prove Prejudice” Rule: A Landmark Win for Natural Justice
19Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Curbs “Prove Prejudice” Rule: A Landmark Win for Natural Justice

The Supreme Court ruled that violating mandatory procedural safeguards in disciplinary inquiries, like failing to question an employee on adverse evidence, inherently constitutes prejudice. Relying on undisclosed material, such as a vigilance report, to enhance punishment also violates natural justice. No independent proof of prejudice is required for such fundamental breaches. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, K. Prabhakar Hegde, was a senior officer and Zonal Head of Vijaya Bank (which later merged with Bank of Baroda). In 1999, he was served with notices alleging irregularities in sanctioning temporary overdrafts to various parties. Formal disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him in 2001. An inquiry officer was appointed, who submitted a report holding the charges proved. N...
Read More
Wake-Up Call for Courts: Supreme Court Says Long Delays Can Create New Rights in Property Disputes
18Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Wake-Up Call for Courts: Supreme Court Says Long Delays Can Create New Rights in Property Disputes

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order condoning a delay of 5,250 days in filing a restoration application. It held that courts must be cognizant of third-party rights created during prolonged delays and that such condonation requires reasoned orders after hearing affected parties, who may be impleaded. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a suit for eviction filed by Mafatlal Mangilal Kothari and another (Respondent Nos. 1 and 2) against the defendants concerning a disputed property. The Trial Court dismissed the suit in 1988, prompting the plaintiffs to file a First Appeal. This appeal was admitted by the Bombay High Court in 1989 but was eventually listed in 2008, where the Court passed an order stating that if the co...
Read More
Supreme Court Clarifies GST Law: When Can Central and State Authorities Investigate the Same Case?
17Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies GST Law: When Can Central and State Authorities Investigate the Same Case?

The Supreme Court held that the issuance of a summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act does not constitute the "initiation of proceedings" under Section 6(2)(b). The bar against parallel proceedings is triggered only upon the issuance of a show-cause notice, which formally crystallizes the subject matter and commences adjudication. Facts Of The Case: The petitioner, M/S Armour Security (India) Ltd., a company providing security services, was issued a show-cause notice dated 18.11.2024 by the State GST authority (Respondent No. 2) under Section 73 of the CGST Act. This notice raised a tax demand for the period April 2020-March 2021 on grounds of under-declared tax and excess Input Tax Credit (ITC) claims. Subsequently, on 16.01.2025, the Central GST authority (Respondent No. 1) conducted ...
Read More
No Grace Marks: Supreme Court Shuts Down Plea from UP Lekhpal Candidates After Answer Key Change
16Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

No Grace Marks: Supreme Court Shuts Down Plea from UP Lekhpal Candidates After Answer Key Change

The Supreme Court held that applications challenging exam answers filed after the cut-off date (21.11.2023) were barred by its prior order and thus dismissed. However, it allowed applications that were pending as of 24.04.2025, restoring them for re-evaluation benefits, while rejecting claims for grace marks as impermissible after a court-directed re-evaluation. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from a dispute concerning the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Lekhpal examination conducted in 2021-22 by the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Commission. The initial litigation focused on the correctness of specific questions, notably Question No. 88 in Booklet Series 'F'. The Supreme Court, in an order dated 21.11.2023, directed that answer 'D' be treated as correct for this question and order...
Read More
Courts Can’t Settle Political Scores: Supreme Court’s Big Ruling on Govt. Advertisements
8Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Courts Can’t Settle Political Scores: Supreme Court’s Big Ruling on Govt. Advertisements

The Supreme Court ruled that naming government welfare schemes after political leaders is not prohibited by law. It clarified that the Common Cause judgments primarily regulate the use of photographs in government advertisements, not the naming of schemes themselves, thereby setting aside the interim order of the High Court. Facts Of The Case: The State of Tamil Nadu government launched a welfare initiative named the "Ungaludan Stalin" (Your's Stalin) scheme. Its stated objective was to bridge the gap between citizens and existing government programs by organizing camps and dispatching volunteers to help people understand and access their entitled benefits. An opposition Member of Parliament filed a complaint with the Election Commission of India (ECI), alleging the scheme's name and ass...
Read More
Who Pays for Unpaid Power Bills? Supreme Court Explains ‘Regulatory Asset’ Mess and Orders a Fix
6Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Who Pays for Unpaid Power Bills? Supreme Court Explains ‘Regulatory Asset’ Mess and Orders a Fix

The Supreme Court ruled that Regulatory Assets, while a valid regulatory tool, must be created only in exceptional circumstances and liquidated in a time-bound manner. It upheld the legal framework under the Electricity Act, 2003, and directed strict adherence to the newly inserted Rule 23 of the Electricity Rules, which mandates a maximum 3% gap in revenue and a 7-year liquidation period for existing assets. The judgment emphasizes the duty of Regulatory Commissions to ensure cost-reflective tariffs and affirms APTEL's power under Section 121 to issue directions against regulatory failure. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from petitions and appeals filed by three private power distribution companies (Discoms) in Delhi—BSES Rajdhani, BSES Yamuna, and Tata Power Delhi—agains...
Read More
No Pay Cut Without a Chance to Argue: Supreme Court Sides with Ex-Navy Personnel Against Bank
26Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

No Pay Cut Without a Chance to Argue: Supreme Court Sides with Ex-Navy Personnel Against Bank

The Supreme Court held that pay fixation of re-employed ex-servicemen is governed solely by government guidelines, which banks cannot override. It ruled that reducing pay without providing an opportunity of hearing violates principles of natural justice, rendering such an administrative action legally unsustainable. Facts Of The Case: After retiring from the Indian Navy, the appellants were re-employed by Punjab National Bank between 2015-2017 as Single Window Operators. Their initial pay was fixed at a higher amount, with four appellants receiving ₹40,710 and one receiving ₹34,160. However, following a 2018 clarification from the Indian Banks' Association (IBA) that capped the maximum basic pay for ex-servicemen at ₹31,540, the bank issued a circular and subsequently reduced the appella...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules: Rejecting Job Regularization on Multiple Grounds is Not Contempt of Court
25Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: Rejecting Job Regularization on Multiple Grounds is Not Contempt of Court

The Supreme Court held that the authority's order, which rejected regularization claims on multiple fresh legal grounds—including qualifications and financial burden—constituted valid compliance with the High Court's direction. Since the rejection was not solely based on the prohibited "contract labour" ground, it could not be construed as wilful disobedience amounting to contempt of court. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from drivers engaged by the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) seeking regularization of their services. Their initial representation was rejected by the NOIDA CEO in 2017 solely on the ground that they were intermittent workers hired through a contractor. This rejection was challenged and set aside by the Allahabad High Court in February 2020, wh...
Read More
Supreme Court Upholds Departmental Inquiries: Authority for Minor Penalties Can Issue Major Charge Sheets
22Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Departmental Inquiries: Authority for Minor Penalties Can Issue Major Charge Sheets

The Supreme Court held that under Rule 13(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, a disciplinary authority competent to impose only minor penalties is fully empowered to institute proceedings and issue a charge-sheet for imposing major penalties. The final order, however, must be passed by the authority competent to impose a major penalty. Facts Of The Case: The respondent, R. Shankarappa, was a Sub Divisional Engineer in the Department of Telecommunications who retired in 2018. In 2003, he was prosecuted by the CBI in two cases: one for demanding and accepting a bribe, and another for possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. He was convicted in both cases, but the High Court later stayed the conviction and sentence, with the criminal appeals remaining pending. Paralle...
Read More
Win for Taxpayers: Supreme Court Says GST Authorities Can’t Skip Adjudication After Payment
22Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Win for Taxpayers: Supreme Court Says GST Authorities Can’t Skip Adjudication After Payment

The Supreme Court held that payment of tax and penalty under Section 129 of the CGST Act does not absolve the proper officer from passing a reasoned order under Section 129(3). Such an order is mandatory to safeguard the taxpayer’s right to appeal and ensure compliance with principles of natural justice and due process under Article 265 of the Constitution. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, M/s ASP Traders, a Karnataka-based dealer, consigned 17,850 kg of dry arceanut to a Delhi-based company. During transit, the goods were transhipped, and seven bags went missing. The vehicle was subsequently detained by the Uttar Pradesh Mobile Squad in Jhansi. A notice was issued under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act, alleging discrepancies including the shortfall in quantity and questioning the existe...
Read More