Tag: Special Leave Petition

Supreme Court Rules: Promotion Cannot Be Denied Due to Illegal Departmental Proceedings
13Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: Promotion Cannot Be Denied Due to Illegal Departmental Proceedings

The Supreme Court held that when departmental proceedings are quashed for being illegal and vitiated by delay, the employee must be restored to the position they would have occupied in the service's normal course. This entitles them to retrospective promotion from the date their immediate junior was promoted, with all attendant consequential benefits, including pay, allowances, and pensionary benefits. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Jyotshna Singh, was a Block Development Officer in Jharkhand. In 2007, an audit objection raised a suspicion of misappropriation, but a subsequent inquiry by the Deputy Commissioner cleared her, finding the expenditure was within the estimated cost. A decade later, in 2017, a charge-sheet was issued on the same allegation, culminating in a punishment of wi...
Read More
State Cannot Penalize Employee for Its Own Error, Rules Supreme Court
7Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

State Cannot Penalize Employee for Its Own Error, Rules Supreme Court

The Supreme Court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 to grant relief, ruling that an appellant, though initially ineligible, cannot be penalized for the state authorities' error in selecting and appointing him. The court reinstated the appellant with continuity of service but denied back wages, clarifying the decision was based on the case's peculiar facts and would not set a precedent. Facts Of The Case: The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission advertised for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT), reserving 25% of vacancies for teachers from Government Elementary Schools with five years of experience. The appellant, a teacher at a fully government-aided minority school, applied under this quota. His application was processed by the Commission, which found hi...
Read More
Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Limitation Issues in Arbitration Must Get a Full Hearing
5Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Limitation Issues in Arbitration Must Get a Full Hearing

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court held that a preliminary issue of limitation, being a mixed question of law and fact, cannot be permanently foreclosed by an arbitrator based on a demurrer. The Court clarified that such a decision on demurrer is not a final adjudication on merits and does not preclude a subsequent examination based on evidence, as it would violate the fundamental mandate of Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose from a Share Subscription Agreement (SSA) dated 23.07.2008 between Urban Infrastructure Real Estate Fund (Petitioner) and Neelkanth Realty Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent). The Petitioner invested Rs. 25 Crore, with a clause stipulating a refund if certain "Conditions Precedent" were not fulfilled within 90 days. The Respondent...
Read More
Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: 12-Year Limit to Reclaim Property Applied in Forgery Case
4Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: 12-Year Limit to Reclaim Property Applied in Forgery Case

The Supreme Court clarified that when a sale deed is void ab initio due to non-execution by the owner, a suit for possession based on title is governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, prescribing a 12-year limitation period. Article 59, which applies to voidable instruments requiring cancellation, is inapplicable. A plaintiff challenging a void transaction is not obligated to seek its cancellation and can file a simpliciter suit for possession within twelve years from when the defendant's possession became adverse. Facts Of The Case: The plaintiffs, legal heirs of Rasali, instituted a suit claiming a one-third share in agricultural land, alleging that a sale deed dated 14.06.1973, which purportedly transferred the land to the defendant, Shanti Devi, was fraudulent. The...
Read More
Delayed Counter-Claim for Specific Performance Dismissed by Supreme Court
1Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Delayed Counter-Claim for Specific Performance Dismissed by Supreme Court

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that a counter-claim under Order VIII Rule 6A of the CPC must be filed against the plaintiff, not solely against a co-defendant. Furthermore, while no specific time limit is prescribed, a counter-claim cannot be permitted after the framing of issues in the suit, as it defeats the purpose of speedy justice and procedural efficiency. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Rajul Manoj Shah, filed a suit in 2012 concerning a bungalow she jointly owned with her sister-in-law (defendant no.1). She sought a declaration that her sister-in-law had no right to transfer the property and to nullify an Agreement to Sell dated 21.10.2011 executed in favor of respondent no.1, Kiranbhai Patel (defendant no.2). After the sister-in-law passed away in ...
Read More
Tenant Can’t Deny Landlord’s Title, Rules Supreme Court in Key Eviction Case
28Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Tenant Can’t Deny Landlord’s Title, Rules Supreme Court in Key Eviction Case

The Supreme Court held that in an eviction suit, strict proof of ownership is not required. A tenant cannot deny the landlord's title under whom they entered possession. The Will bequeathing the property, especially when probated, confers sufficient legal sanctity to maintain the eviction proceedings. The bona fide need of the landlord was also upheld. Facts Of The Case: The dispute involves a shop room tenancy initiated in 1953 by Ramji Das, the appellant's father-in-law, with the father of the respondents. Upon Ramji Das's death in 1999, a Will bequeathed the shop to the appellant, Jyoti Sharma. She subsequently filed a suit for eviction on grounds of bona fide need, seeking to expand her husband's adjacent sweets business, and for recovery of rent arrears from January 2000. Th...
Read More
Lawyer’s Reputation Restored: Supreme Court Wipes Clean High Court’s “Professional Impropriety” Remark
27Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Lawyer’s Reputation Restored: Supreme Court Wipes Clean High Court’s “Professional Impropriety” Remark

The Supreme Court expunged adverse remarks made by the High Court against an advocate, holding that such observations could have been avoided. The Court considered the possibility of a bona fide omission by the counsel, who was not involved in the connected case, and ruled that the expunction of the adverse comments was warranted in the circumstances of the case. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, an advocate named Siddharth Gupta, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh on behalf of his clients. During the proceedings, he relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Index Medical College Hospital & Research Centre. The Division Bench of the High Court, in its final order, made adverse observations against the appellant, noting that his conduct "bor...
Read More
Training is a Must: Supreme Court Judgment on Railway Recruitment and Service Confirmation
16Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Training is a Must: Supreme Court Judgment on Railway Recruitment and Service Confirmation

The Supreme Court held that successful completion of prescribed training, including passing the requisite written test, is a mandatory condition precedent for confirmation in service for direct recruits to Group 'C' non-gazetted railway posts. Failure to clear this training examination validly entitles the employer to terminate services, as it is a fundamental term of recruitment governed by the Master Circular. Facts Of The Case: The case involved Alok Kumar, who was provisionally appointed as a Senior Section Engineer (Trainee) in the Railways after clearing a recruitment examination. His appointment was conditional on the successful completion of a 52-week training program. After 46 weeks of field training, he was sent, along with other trainees, to a three-week General and Subsidiary...
Read More
Supreme Court Clarifies: Reserved Candidates Availing Age, Physical Relaxations Can’t Migrate to General Quota
16Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies: Reserved Candidates Availing Age, Physical Relaxations Can’t Migrate to General Quota

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that reserved category candidates availing relaxations in age or physical standards are barred from migrating to unreserved vacancies if the governing recruitment rules impose such an embargo. Conversely, relaxations in physical standards based on gender or ethnicity, absent a specific rule, do not automatically preclude such migration. The applicability depends on the explicit provisions of the relevant recruitment rules or office memoranda. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a recruitment drive initiated by the Railway Protection Force (RPF) in 2013 to fill various ancillary posts. The employment notification provided age and physical measurement relaxations for candidates from SC/ST and OBC categories. A key issue arose regarding candidat...
Read More
Supreme Court : Wife as Attesting Witness Does Not Invalidate a Will
9Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court : Wife as Attesting Witness Does Not Invalidate a Will

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in framing an additional substantial question of law under Section 100(5) CPC without foundational pleadings, issues, or recorded reasons. A will, once duly executed and proved, must be given effect to, and succession cannot be reopened on a new legal case at the second appeal stage. The testamentary disposition was upheld. Facts Of The Case: The case concerns a dispute over the estate of C.R. Pius and Philomina Pius. The couple executed a registered joint will in 2003, bequeathing their properties to their son, C.P. Francis (the Appellant), subject to the condition that he pay specific monetary sums to his siblings. After the parents' deaths, the other children (Respondents) filed a suit for partition, claiming their parents died intestat...
Read More