RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS Vs. C.N. SAHASRANAMAN AND ORS [ALL SC 1986 APRIL]

The main question which needs determination is whether part of the scheme mentioned before introduced by the Reserve Bank of India is violative of guarantee of equality before law and of equal opportunity in public employment as enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The High Court noted that the point arose at the instance of three petitioners who were Grade II working at Nagpur branch of Reserve Bank ever since their employment which commenced somewhere between 1960 to 1965.… Read More RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS Vs. C.N. SAHASRANAMAN AND ORS [ALL SC 1986 APRIL]

Suresh Kumar Koushal & Anr vs Naz Foundation & Ors [ALL SC 2013 DECEMBER]

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.10972 OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.15436 of 2009) Suresh Kumar Koushal & Anr vs Naz Foundation & Ors Decided on: 11 December 2013 Bench: G.S. Singhvi, Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya JUDGMENT G.S. SINGHVI, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. These appeals are directed against order… Read More Suresh Kumar Koushal & Anr vs Naz Foundation & Ors [ALL SC 2013 DECEMBER]

C. Venkatachalam Versus Ajitkumar C. Shah and Others [ALL SC 2011 AUGUST]

In order to ensure smooth, consistent, uniform and unvarying functioning of the National Commission, the State Commissions and the District Forums, we deem it appropriate to direct the National Commission to frame comprehensive rules regarding appearances of the agents, representatives, registered organizations and/or non-advocates appearing before the National Commission, the State Commissions and the District Forums governing their qualifications, conduct and ethical behaviour of agents/non-advocates/representatives, registered organizations and/or agents appearing before the consumer forums.… Read More C. Venkatachalam Versus Ajitkumar C. Shah and Others [ALL SC 2011 AUGUST]

Scope of an irrevocable letter of credit explained by Supreme Court

An irrevocable letter of credit has a definite implication. It is a mechanism of great importance in international trade. Any interference with that mechanism is bound to have serious repercussions on the international trade of this country. Except under very exceptional circumstances, the Courts should not interfere with that mechanism. There is this to be… Read More Scope of an irrevocable letter of credit explained by Supreme Court

Kuldip Nayar Versus Union of India and Ors [ALL SC 2006 AUGUST]

In the writ petition, there is a further challenge to the amendments in Sections 59, 94 and 128 of the RP Act, 1951 by which Open Ballot System is introduced which, according to the petitioner, violates the principle of ‘secrecy’ which, according to the petitioner, is the essence of free and fair elections as also the voter’s freedom of expression which is the basic feature of the Constitution and the subject matter of the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.… Read More Kuldip Nayar Versus Union of India and Ors [ALL SC 2006 AUGUST]

Dr. N. G. Dastane Versus Mrs. S. Dastane [ALL SC 1975 March]

The Mohomedan law, on a question of what is legal cruelty between Man and Wife, would probably not differ materially from our own of which one of the most recent exposition is the following:- There must be actual violence of such a character as to endanger personal health or safety; or there must be a reasonable apprehension of it’… Read More Dr. N. G. Dastane Versus Mrs. S. Dastane [ALL SC 1975 March]

Whether the award could be set aside, if the Arbitral Tribunal has not followed the mandatory procedure prescribed under S. 24, 28 or 31(3), which affects the rights of the parties?

Under sub-section (1)(a) of S. 28 there is a mandate to the Arbitral Tribunal to decide the dispute in accordance with the substantive law for the time being in force in India. Admittedly, substantive law would include the Indian Contract Act, the Transfer of Property Act and other such laws in force. Suppose, if the… Read More Whether the award could be set aside, if the Arbitral Tribunal has not followed the mandatory procedure prescribed under S. 24, 28 or 31(3), which affects the rights of the parties?