Parties Cannot Directly Approach Supreme Court Under Article 32 Seeking Divorce On Ground Of Irretrievable Breakdown Of Marriage : SC

While holding that irretrievable breakdown of marriage can be a ground to grant divorce by invoking powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court clarified that a party cannot file a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and seek relief of dissolution of marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage directly from it.The Constitution...

Waiting Period For Mutual Consent Divorce As Per S.13B(2) Of Hindu Marriage Act Can Be Waived Invoking Article 142 : Supreme Court

A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has held that it can invoke the special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to waive the waiting period of 6 to 8 months prescribed for seeking divorce through mutual consent as per Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955.The 5-judge bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, AS Oka, Vikram Nath and JK...

Supreme Court Grants Notional Seniority To Private Secretaries At Delhi High Court Whose Marks Increased Post Re-evaluation Of Answer Sheets

Recently, the Supreme Court granted notional seniority to Private Secretaries at the Delhi High Court, who had applied against 27 vacant posts in 2016, on the basis of a revised merit list upon increase of marks on re-evaluation of their answer sheets.A Bench comprising Justice MR Shah and Justice Sanjay Karol set aside the order of the Delhi High Court which quashed the revised merit...

Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Plaint To Be Rejected If It Is Vexatious, Illusory Cause Of Action And Barred By Limitation : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that a plaint should be rejected under Order VII Rule XI(a) and (d) of CPC if it is vexatious, illusory cause of action and barred by limitation.In this case, the defendant filed an application seeking rejection of plaint contending that the suit was clearly barred by limitation and therefore, the plaint ought to have been rejected under Order VII Rule XI(d) of the...

Chargesheet Not Incomplete Merely Because It Was Filed Without Sanction; Accused Can't Seek Default Bail On That Ground : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court today pronounced a judgement holding that an accused person would not be entitled to default bail on the ground that the chargesheet filed against them is without a sanction of valid authority and hence is an incomplete chargesheet. The judgement was pronounced by a bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala. The bench held that whether the sanction of a...

'Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage' A Ground To Dissolve Marriage Invoking Article 142 Powers : Supreme Court

In a significant verdict, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on Monday held that it can invoke its special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to grant divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, which is not yet a statutorily recognised ground."We have held that it is possible for this court to dissolve marriage on the ground of irretrievable...

Pension : Supreme Court Rejects Claim Of Employees To Count Entire Period Of Work-Charged Service For Pension

The Supreme Court has recently held that service rendered as work charged employee cannot be counted for the purpose of pension. The Court refused to accept a plea to consider the entire period of work charged service as service for computing pension and upheld a rule framed by the Bihar Government by which the work-charged service will be counted only to the extent of shortfall in...

Specific Relief Act | Action To Cancel Instrument Under Section 31 Is Not Action In Rem : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court reiterated that an action instituted under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for cancellation of an instrument is not an action in rem. It means that the cancellation of instrument as per this section will bind only the parties to the proceedings and will not operate universally against everyone.A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Rajesh Bindal made...

Delhi Rent Control | Improper Description Of Property In Application No Ground To Set Aside Possession Order Under Section 25-B(8) : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Sanjay Kumar, while adjudicating an appeal filed in Kusum Lata Sharma v Arvind Singh, has held that when the Rent Controller permits eviction of tenants on the ground of bona fide requirement by the Landlord after perusing facts and evidence on record, then such order cannot be set aside by the High Court in review...

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up (17th April to 23rd April 2023)

With another week gone at the Supreme Court of India, Live Law is back with its Supreme Court Weekly Digest to keep our readers up to date with the latest legal developments in the Apex court of the country.Judgments/OrdersOrder VII Rule 11 CPC - Inconsistencies In Plaint Averments Not A Sufficient Reason To Reject Plaint : Supreme Court[Case Title: G. Nagaraj v. BP Mruthunjayanna| Citation:...

Supreme Court Upholds Requirement Of ‘Pre-Import Condition’ To Claim IGST And GST Compensation Cess On Imports Made Under ‘Advance Authorization’

The Supreme Court has upheld the requirement of ‘pre-import condition’ incorporated in the Foreign Trade Policy of 2015-2020 (FTP) and Handbook of Procedures 2015-2020 (HBP) to claim exemption of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) and GST Compensation Cess on inputs imported into India for manufacture of export goods, on the basis of ‘Advance Authorization’.The bench...

Section 16-B Of Himachal Pradesh General Sales Tax Act Is Not Ultra Vires Any Provision Of Law: Supreme Court Reiterates

The Supreme Court has ruled that Section 16-B of the Himachal Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1968 (HPGST Act) is not ultra vires any provision of law. The bench comprising Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta set aside the judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court where it had held that Section 16-B of the HPGST Act was inconsistent with Section 35 of the Securitisation...