Advocatetanmoy Law Library

💡 Important Articles


💡 Current Supreme Court Decisions

  • Rajasthan State Roadways Transport Corporation Vs. Paramjeet Singh – 03/05/19 - LABOUR LAW- The nature of the appointment was purely contractual for a period of one year or until the shortage of drivers was met, whichever was earlier. Moreover, the contract stipulates that the services of the respondent could be dispensed with without any notice.  The terms of the appointment indicate that the respondent was on a purely contractual appointment and that the services could be dispensed with without notice at any stage.
  • Shri Hanumant Dinkar Arjun Vs. Shri Suresh R. Andhare & ANR – 03/05/19 - Criminal Appeal - In our opinion, the order dated 26.02.2003, which is the basis of the complaint in question, is sub judice in the criminal appeal. In other words, when the order, which is the foundation for filing the complaint in question itself is sub judice, the appellant is required to await the final outcome of the criminal appeal filed by the accused persons.
  • The Maharashtra Public Service Commission through its Secretary Vs. Sandeep Shriram Warade – 03/05/19 - The essential qualifications for appointment to a post are for the employer to decide. If the language of the advertisement and the rules are clear, the Court cannot sit in judgment over the same. If there is an ambiguity in the advertisement or it is contrary to any rules or law the matter has to go back to the appointing authority after appropriate orders, to proceed in accordance with law. In no case can the Court, in the garb of judicial review, sit in the chair of the appointing authority to decide what is best for the employer and interpret the conditions of the advertisement contrary to the plain language of the same.
  • Tata Power Company Ltd. Vs. Adani Electricity Mumbai Ltd – 02/05/19 - As a matter of fact, what was agreed in the Principles of Agreement more amount than that has been ordered to be paid on the basis of principles of business equilibrium and other factors
  • State of Jammu and Kashmir Vs. Farid Ahmad Tak – 02/05/19 - Mere summary disposal of a Special Leave Petition does not conclude the issue on merits. The acts of commission and omission on part of the concerned Respondents as a result of which there was wrongful loss to the State and public interest was compromised.

Delhi high Court

💡 Current High Court Decisions

  • Smt. Bijoya Laxmi Parui & Ors Vs Dr Rajendranath Parui & Ors[CHC] – 14/6/2019 - Second Appeal-370 days Delay Condoned on the ground that the learned advocate who was entrusted to prepare the memorandum of appeal advised that no appeal is required to be filed as the preliminary decree is not challenged before the Court. It is held that the lapses or negligence on the part of the advocate should not stand in the way of rendering substantial service to the litigant.