Filter by Date
Supreme Court of India (Full Bench (FB)- Three Judge)

TALUKDAR SINGH Vs. TATA ENGINEERING AND LOCOMOTIVE CO. LTD

Appeal (Civil), 5701 of 2015, Judgment Date: Jul 24, 2015

Full Judgment

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

RAKHIAL GRAM PANCHAYAT Vs. JAGATSINH ADESINH JHALA

Appeal (Civil), 4220 of 2006, Judgment Date: Jul 23, 2015

Full Judgment

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

PRABHU DAYAL KHANDELWAL Vs. CHAIRMAN, U.P.S.C. & ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 8006-8007 of 2003, Judgment Date: Jul 23, 2015

Full Judgment

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

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs. BALWANT SINGH

Appeal (Civil), 5616 of 2015, Judgment Date: Jul 22, 2015

Full Judgment

Chhatisgarh High Court (Single Judge)

Pratibha Tiwari Vs The State of Chhattisgarh

WPS->WRIT PETITON SERVICE MATTER, 2580 of 2015, Judgment Date: Jul 20, 2015

Full Judgment

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

SURENDRA KUMAR & ORS Vs. GREATER NOIDA IND. DEVELOPMENT AUTH.&ORS

Appeal (Civil), 4916 of 2015, Judgment Date: Jul 02, 2015

The main issue that arises for consideration is whether the policy decision extending the benefit of regularisation to contractual employees against 60% vacant posts will be deemed to regularise the services of the appellants from the retrospective date, that is, 20.11.2002, when the said posts were first advertised. The appellants were Full Judgment

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

PREM RAM Vs. M.D. UTTARAKHAND PEY JAL & NIRM.NIGM&ORS

Appeal (Civil), 4474 of 2015, Judgment Date: May 15, 2015

If engagement in a work- charged establishment rest on a criterion, no better than the absolute discretion of the authority engaging them or the fortuitous circumstances of a vacancy or need in a work-charged establishment, then, there is indeed no difference between a daily-wager on the one hand and work-charged employees on the other. No distinction can resultantly be Full Judgment

Allahabad High Court (Full Bench (FB)- Three Judge)

Raeesul Hasan Vs. State Of U.P.Through Secy.Education And 5 Ors.

WRIT - A, 1593 of 2001, Judgment Date: May 14, 2015

Full Judgment

Allahabad High Court (Full Bench (FB)- Three Judge)

State Of U.P.Thr.Secy.Secondary Education & Ors.[Larg.Bench] Vs. C/M Sukhpal Intermediate College Sultanpur & Ors7404(S/S)06

SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE, 673 of 2014, Judgment Date: May 12, 2015

Full Judgment

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

HC PRADEEP KUMAR RAI & ORS. Vs. DINESH KUMAR PANDEY & ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 6549 of 2014, Judgment Date: May 11, 2015

Full Judgment

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

K.RADHIKA Vs. T.RAJYA LAXMI & ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 4201 of 2015, Judgment Date: May 05, 2015

It consists of innumerable errors. We only hope that it is not the desire of the High Court that such candidates are required to be appointed merely because they have the higher grade qualification. We, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the judgment under appeal. Full Judgment

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

M/S ARIANE ORGACHEM PVT.LTD. Vs. WYETH EMPLOYEES UNION & ORS

Appeal (Civil), 246 of 2015, Judgment Date: Apr 29, 2015

“When a question of law is raised for the first time in a court of last resort, upon the construction of a document, or upon facts either admitted or proved beyond controversy, it is not only competent but expedient, in the interests of justice, to entertain the plea.” Therefore, with regard to the above mentioned aspect regarding the plea of the competency of the Deputy Labour Commissioner to pass an Full Judgment

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

KHUB RAM Vs. DALBIR SINGH & ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 2734 of 2015, Judgment Date: Apr 29, 2015

  Mr. Patwalia has rightly placed reliance to support the aforesaid submissions, on a judgment of this Court in the case of Meghmala v. G. Narasimha Reddy (2010) 8 SCC 383. The law relating to effect of fraud upon a competent authority to get an appointment/office as well as effect of fraud upon court has been discussed in detail in paragraphs 28 to 36 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)

UMRALA GRAM PANCHAYAT Vs. THE SEC.MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEE UNION & ORS

Appeal (Civil), 3209-3210 of 2015, Judgment Date: Mar 27, 2015

They have also been working for similar number of hours, however, the discrepancy in the payment of wages/salary between the permanent and the non-permanent workmen is alarming and the same has to be construed as being an unfair labour practice as defined under Section 2(ra) of the ID Act r/w Entry No.10 of the Fifth Schedule to the ID Act, which is prohibited under Section 25(T) of the ID Full Judgment

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

A. RAGHU, SON OF RAJAIAH Vs. GOVT. OF A.P. & ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 5862 of 2007, Judgment Date: Mar 26, 2015

The judgments cited pertain to the particular rule of seniority, which was subject matter of consideration. None of the seniority rules which were taken into consideration is akin to rule 15 which is to be applied for determining the inter se seniority of Sub- Inspectors of Police, in the present case. Full Judgment

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

T.NADU TERMD.FULL TIME TEM.LIC EMP.ASSN. Vs. LIFE INSURANCE CORP.OF INDIA & ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 6950 of 2009, Judgment Date: Mar 18, 2015

The concerned workmen are the members of the appellant-Associations, Federation of Employees Association, Workers Association and other concerned individual workmen who were working in the branches of the Corporation at various places in the country have raised the existing industrial dispute between the concerned workmen and the management of Full Judgment

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

STATE OF MP. & ORS. Vs. MALA BANERJEE

Appeal (Civil), 2944 of 2015, Judgment Date: Mar 17, 2015

3 Very briefly stated, the dispute pertains to the eligibility of the Respondents, all of whom are Lecturers/Teachers in the employment of the Education and Tribal Welfare Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh, for increased pay scales. The Respondents claim the benefits of the Kramonnati Scheme with effect from 19.4.1999, whereas the Appellants assert that they are willing to grant the benefit of the Kramonnati Scheme 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