Filter by Date
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

CORRESPONDENT, ANAIKAR ORIENTAL (ARABIC) HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL AND ANR. Vs. A. HAROON AND ANR.

Appeal (Civil), 12067 of 2016, Judgment Date: Dec 14, 2016

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

JORSINGH GOVIND VANJARI Vs. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JALGAON DIVI

Appeal (Civil), 11807 of 2016, Judgment Date: Dec 06, 2016

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

MANAGEMENT OF TNSTC LTD Vs. M. CHANDRASEKARAN

Appeal (Civil), 6765-66 of 2014, Judgment Date: Sep 02, 2016

In our opinion, the Commissioner exceeded his jurisdiction in reappreciating the evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer and in substituting his own judgment to that of the Disciplinary Authority. It was not a case of no legal evidence produced during the enquiry by the Department, in relation to the charges framed against Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

B.H. KHAWAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 9182 of 2012, Judgment Date: Aug 12, 2016

Indubitably, if the argument of the appellant was accepted, it would inevitably mean that all appointments made before 28.11.2000 must be protected even though it had not become final. That would also mean that all caste certificates issued to persons belonging to “Koshti” community, as being “Halba” Scheduled Tribe in Maharashtra, prior to November 28, 2000 (the day on which Milind’s case was decided Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs. DILER SINGH

Appeal (Civil), 1133 of 2016, Judgment Date: Jun 30, 2016

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

MD ZAMIL AHMED Vs. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS

Appeal (Civil), 4815 of 2016, Judgment Date: May 05, 2016

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

NANDRAM Vs. M/S GARWARE POLYSTER LTD.

Appeal (Civil), 1409 of 2016, Judgment Date: Feb 16, 2016

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

PREM NARAIN Vs. M/S SWADESHI COTTON MILLS, JUHI & ANR.

Appeal (Civil), 1403 of 2016, Judgment Date: Feb 15, 2016

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

SHOBHA RAM RATURI Vs. HARYANA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD.& ORS

Appeal (Civil), 11325 of 2011, Judgment Date: Dec 09, 2015

Having given our thoughtful consideration to the controversy, we are satisfied, that after the impugned order of retirement dated 31.12.2002 was set aside, the appellant was entitled to all consequential benefits. The fault lies with the respondents in not having utilised the services of the appellant for the period from 1.1.2003 to 31.12.2005. Had the appellant been allowed to continue in service, Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

BRIJ BIHARI SINGH Vs. BIHAR STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION & ORS.(R-1,4,7)

Appeal (Civil), 1217 of 2011, Judgment Date: Nov 20, 2015

It is well settled that a person who is required to answer a charge imposed should know not only the accusation but also the testimony by which the accusation is supported. The delinquent must be given fair chance to hear the evidence in support of the charge and to cross-examine the witnesses who prove the charge. The delinquent must also be given a chance to Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR Vs. R.K. ZALPURI AND ORS

Appeal (Civil), 8390-8391 of 2015, Judgment Date: Oct 08, 2015

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

JAGDISH LAL GAMBHIR Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 6975 of 2009, Judgment Date: Oct 06, 2015

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

RAJINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR

Appeal (Civil), 8064 of 2015, Judgment Date: Sep 30, 2015

But the question is, whether dismissal is the only option in such situations where an employee is found unfit for service. We have no doubt in our mind that indiscipline of any sort cannot be tolerated at all in a disciplined force. However, in the factual background of the appellant which we have referred to above, the disciplinary authority or at least the appellate authority, should have considered whether a punishment other than dismissal would have been Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

STATE OF M.P. Vs. MOHAN LAL

Appeal (Civil), 6650 of 2015, Judgment Date: Aug 28, 2015

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. In view of the Order dated 15.09.2014 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 9675 of 2014 titled as “State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Vinod Kumar Tiwari”, in our considered opinion, it is a fit case where some compensation should be awarded to the respondent instead of directing the appellant to reinstate Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

RAJESHWAR BABURAO BONE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR

Appeal (Civil), 5778 of 2015, Judgment Date: Jul 29, 2015

Full Judgment

Delhi High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

RAJESH KUMAR GANDHI Vs SHRIRAM INSTITUTE FOR INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH

LPA, 102 of 2013, Judgment Date: Jul 27, 2015

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY & ANR. Vs. PANNALAL CHOUDHURY & ANR.

Appeal (Civil), 5070 of 2008, Judgment Date: Jul 01, 2015

Full Judgment

Chhatisgarh High Court (Single Judge)

Ashish Kumar Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh & ors

WPS->WRIT PETITON SERVICE MATTER, 1182 of 2015, Judgment Date: Apr 08, 2015

The issue with which this Court is required to deal is whether nondisclosure of registration of a criminal case, in which the petitioner has already been acquitted would make him eligible for remaining in employment? 8. In the matter of Devendra Kumar Vs. State of Uttaranchan And Others1, the Supreme Court has held that issue of obtaining appointment by misrepresentation is no more res integra. The question is not whether the applicant is suitable for the post. Pendency of criminal Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

K.P. Manu Versus Chairman, Scrutiny Committee for Verification of Community Certificate

Appeal (Civil), 7065 of 2008, Judgment Date: Feb 26, 2015

As we perceive, the controversy fundamentally has three arenas, namely, (1) whether on conversion and at what stage a person born to Christian parents can, after reconversion to the Hindu religion, be eligible to claim the benefit of his original caste; (ii) whether after his eligibility is accepted and his original community on a collective basis takes him within its fold, he still can be denied the Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs. DILEEP KUMAR SINGH

Appeal (Civil), 2466 of 2015, Judgment Date: Feb 26, 2015

These appeals raise an interesting question as to  the  interpretation of a proviso contained in  Section  47  of  the  Persons  with  Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of  Rights  and  Full  Participation)  Act, 1995 (in short the "1995 Act"). It is well settled that the provisions  of  a  statute  must  be  read harmoniously together.  However, if this is not possible then it is  settled law that where there is a conflict between  two  Sections,  and  you  cannot reconcile the two, you have to determine which is the leading provision  Full Judgment