Hibbaan/DIVYADRISHTI huggingface dataset:
UNION OF INDIAversusSANJIV CHATURVEDI
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 1587/2023
Decision Date: 03-03-2023
Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC210

M.R. SHAH*, B.V. NAGARATHNA Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 – Transfer of OA – Respondent no.1-original writ petitioner filed Original Application (OA) before Nainital Circuit Bench, CAT – Union of India filed application for transfer of OA from Nainital Circuit Bench to the Principal Bench, New Delhi Bench, New Delhi transferred it to the Principal Bench, New Delhi – It was challenged before High Court of Uttarakhand and High Court had set aside the aforesaid order – On appeal, held : The matter involving the issue of territorial jurisdiction of the High Court to decide a
GODREJ AND BOYCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED THROUGH ITS CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY & ANR.versusTHE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI & ORS
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 9021/2014
Decision Date: 08-05-2023
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC504

V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN*, PANKAJ MITHAL Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 : s. 126 – Acquisition of land required for public purposes specified in the plan – Appellant was the owner of the plot in Mumbai, reserved for the purpose of ‘Recreation Ground’– Application by the appellant no. 1 to surrender land reserved for recreation purpose and for the grant of Development Rights Certificate-DRC – Intention to develop the land sought to be surrendered expressed
SANJAY KUMAR AGARWALversusSTATE TAX OFFICER (1) & ANR.
Case No.: REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1620/2023
Decision Date: 31-10-2023
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC963

A.S. BOPANNA*, BELA M. TRIVEDI HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: A Batch of fi ve Review Petitions was fi led by the Review Petitioners, aggrieved by the common judgment and order dated 06.09.2022 passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1661 of 2020 and of 2020. Whether the Review Petitioners were able to make out any case within the ambit of Order XLVII of Supreme Court Rules, read with Order XLVII of CPC, for reviewing the impugned judgment. Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Or. XLVII – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. XLVII
KARAN @ FATIYAversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 572/2019
Decision Date: 03-03-2023
Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC197

BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, VIKRAM NATH, SANJAY KAROL Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 – Claim of Juvenility – Appellant convicted for various offences under IPC and POCSO Act was awarded death sentence – Death sentence affirmed by High Court – During the pendency of the present appeals, appellant Trial Court was directed to submit report after due inquiry – Report submitted, appellant’s date of birth was found to be conclusively proved as 25.07.2002 – Date of incident being 15.12.2017, the appellant was aged 15 years 04 months and 20 days on the date of the incident
HARI BABU THOTAversus*
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 4422/2023
Decision Date: 29-11-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC1056

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL*, SUDHANSHU DHULIA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the resolution applicant was disqualifi ed under the primary conditions as specifi ed u/s.29A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and; whether the corporate debtor not having an MSME status at the time of commencement of CIRP proceedings would applicant u/s.29A of the Code as benefi t of s.240A would not be available. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – ss.29A, 240A – Persons not eligible to be resolution applicant – Application of the Code to micro, small and medium enterprises – Appellant-Resolution
MOHD. NAUSHADversusSTATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1269/2023
Decision Date: 06-07-2023
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC605

BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, VIKRAM NATH, SANJAY KAROL
AMANDEEP SINGH SARANversusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2625/2023
Decision Date: 29-11-2023
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC1028

C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SUDHANSHU DHULIA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Conduct of the trial for off ence under Section 409, Penal Code, 1860; exercise of powers under Cr.PC, for committal of cases to the Court of competent jurisdiction. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.26, 29, 12, 323; First Schedule to CrPC – s.409 – Courts by which off ences are triable – Procedure when, after commencement of inquiry or trial, Magistrate fi nds case should be committed– Appellant charged for commission of various off ences including u/s.409, IPC punishable with imprisonment for life or
PRATIBHA MANCHANDA & ANRversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ANR
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1793/2023
Decision Date: 07-07-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC612

SURYA KANT*, C.T. RAVIKUMAR Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 438 – Anticipatory bail – Rejection of – Appellants’ case that they had possession over the subject land and they never sold the subject land to anyone nor have they ever executed any power of attorney (GPA) in favor of any third persons had approached the halqa patwari to sanction mutation of the aforesaid land – It was alleged that the application for mutation was based on a forged and fabricated sale deed dated 24.02.2022 – Appellant also learnt that the said sale deed was based on yet another,
ANIL KUMARversusTHE STATE OF KERALA
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2697/2023
Decision Date: 01-11-2023
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC965

English हिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - Punjabi 




 Disclaimer 


 
								 
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools. 
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.
						 
						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India. 
						 
						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text. 
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments. 
						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.
						 ANIL KUMAR  versus THE STATE OF KERALA  - [2023] 14 S.C.R. 1732023 INSC 965 ABHAY S. OKA, PANKAJ MITHAL HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether in the circumstances of the instant case, the appellant had any premeditated mind to kill the deceased or was it due to grave and sudden provocation which would not amount to murder or would at best be a case of culpable homicide not amounting to for a term which may extend up to 10 years or with fi ne or with both u/s. 304 Part-II of IPC. Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 and s. 304 Part-II – Prosecution case that the appellant, with the intention to kill his wife, lighted a matchstick and threw it upon her when she had
ARUN DEV UPADHYAYAversusINTEGRATED SALES SERVICE LTD. & ANR.
Case No.: REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1273/2021
Decision Date: 05-07-2023
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC610

BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, VIKRAM NATH Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. XLVII, r.1 – Review – Scope of – Civil Appeals filed by the Review Petitioner were dismissed vide judgment dtd. 10.08.2021 inter alia holding that foreign award could be enforced against agreement and that the only ground on which its enforcement could be resisted or refused are contained in s.48, Arbitration and Conciliation Act – It also held that the canvas of s.46 is wider than that of s.35 and would apply to all the persons who are not even parties to the
RAMATHAL AND ORS.versusK. RAJAMANI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ANR.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 8830/2012
Decision Date: 17-08-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC737

VIKRAM NATH*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: The view of the High Court that before the Trial Court, there was neither any pleading nor any issue was framed with regard to the plea of non est factum and as such the First Appellate Court committed an error in determining the said plea in favour of the the plaintiff was dismissed. Suit – Plaintiff instituted suit for declaration as the absolute owners of the suit properties and also for consequential relief of permanent injunction on the ground that there was misrepresentation in the General Power of Attorney – Dismissed by trial
CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR RESEARCH IN AYURVEDIC SCIENCES & ANR.versusBIKARTAN DAS & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 3339/2023
Decision Date: 16-08-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC733

D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR RESEARCH IN AYURVEDIC SCIENCES & ANR. v. BIKARTAN DAS & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 3339 of 2023) AUGUST 16, 2023 [DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI AND J.B. PARDIWALA, J.] HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: High Court, if erred in setting aside the order passed by the Ministry of AYUSH. Service Law – Grant of benefi t of enhancement of retirement age – Unsustainability: Held: Respondent No.1 was appointed as a Research Assistant by the appellant-Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences (CCRAS) and was functioning as a Researcher under
PRIYA INDORIAversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. ETC.
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 003549/2023
Decision Date: 20-11-2023
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC1008

B.V. NAGARATHNA*, UJJAL BHUYAN HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the power of the High Court or the Court of Session to grant anticipatory bail u/s 438 CrPC could be exercised with respect to an FIR registered outside the territorial jurisdiction of the said Court; and whether the transit anticipatory bail or interim protection to enable an applicant seeking anticipatory bail to make an application u/s 438 CrPC before a Court of competent jurisdiction is consistent with the administration of criminal justice. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 438 –
Y. P. LELEversusMAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 5155/2023
Decision Date: 16-08-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC732

VIKRAM NATH*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the High Court committed an error in applying the explanation to Or. XVII, r.2 CPC and based upon it held that an application u/Or. IX Rule 13 CPC would not be maintainable as the presence of the defendant would at the time of disposal of the suit. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Explanation to Or. XVII, r.2 and Or. IX, r.13: Held : At the stage when plaintiff ’s evidence was being led, counsel for defendants withdrew his vakalatnama – Trial Court directed to proceed u/Or. XVII,
MALA ETC. ETC.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 3992/2011
Decision Date: 17-08-2023
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC735

BELA M. TRIVEDI*, DIPANKAR DATTA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration : Whether the order passed by the High Court conferring the total amount of compensation payable to the land owners at Rs. 2,400/- per marla for the land Chahi, for the remaining kinds of land for the village Purhiran, and for all kinds of land along with all statutory benefi ts available under the Land Acquisition Act, by applying one third cut on the assessed market value of Rs. 3,000/- per marla, towards development charges; and by not relying upon the sale deeds executed for the shops prior to the date of acquisition, warrants any
ELUMALAI @ VENKATESAN & ANRversusM. KAMALA AND ORS. & ETC.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 521/2023
Decision Date: 25-01-2023
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC83

K.M. JOSEPH*, HRISHIKESH ROY Release Deed – Effect of – Spes Successionis – Estoppel – Warding off, of estoppel by heirs of the person whose conduct created the estoppel – Impropriety of – Dispute regarding self- acquired property of ‘S’ – ‘S’ had married twice were the appellants – When one child of ‘C’ was minor and other was not born, he executed a release deed for relinquishing his share in the property for valuable consideration in the year 1975 – It was also specified in the release deed that ‘C’ will not
KAILASH VIJAYVARGIYAversusRAJLAKSHMI CHAUDHURI AND OTHERS
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1581/2021
Decision Date: 04-05-2023
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC494

M.R. SHAH*, SANJIV KHANNA Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : s. 156(3) – Police officer’s power to investigate cognizable case – Application u/s. 156(3) by the victim-complainant alleging rape by the appellants; and sought direction to police to investigate the matter treating the complaint as an FIR filed several complaints before the police authorities, who conducted an enquiry and found that there was delay of two years in filing the complaint and refused to register the same – Dismissal of the application u/s. 156(3) by the Magistrate – Revision application thereagainst,
DINESH KUMARversusTHE STATE OF HARYANA
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 530/2022
Decision Date: 04-05-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC493

SUDHANSHU DHULIA*, SANJAY KUMAR Penal Code,1860 – ss.302,364,392,394,201 and 34 – Evidence Act, 1872 – ss.27,101,106 and 165 – The case of prosecution was based on circumstantial evidence i.e. the evidence of ‘last seen’ and the ‘discoveries’ made from the information given by the co-accused convicted by Trial Court for the murder of the deceased – Two separate appeals were filed before the High Court – During the pendency of the appeal, the co-accused passed away, thus, his appeal stood abated – The appeal of the present appellant was dismissed, thus
MARIAPPANversusSTATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3598/2023
Decision Date: 24-11-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC1034

VIKRAM NATH*, RAJESH BINDAL HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: On the day of incident, heated arguments took place between the two parties. During the quarrel, accused nos.1 and 2 stabbed victim multiple times with sooriknives, while accused no.3, though armed with a spade handle, did not infl ict injuries attack. The appellant-accused was convicted u/s. 302 IPC. Whether the acts of the accused would come under Exception 4 to s.300 IPC or would be an act of culpable homicide amounting to murder punishable u/s. 302. Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 and s.304 Part-I – Trial Court after examining Decision Date : 24-11-2023 | Case No : CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3598/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeal(s) allowed  | Direction Issue : Appeal partly allowed  |  Bench : 2 Judges
BAHARUL ISLAM & ORS.versusINDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION AND ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 502/2023
Decision Date: 24-01-2023
Disposal: Unknown
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC81

BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, B.V. NAGARATHNA Assam Rural Health Regulatory Authority Act, 2004 – Constitutionality of – Legislative Competency of the State – Assam State legislature enacted the Assam Rural Health Regulatory Authority Act, 2004 – Said Act provides for the establishment of a regulatory authority to and to regulate their practice – State Act in conflict with Central Act (Indian Medical Council Act, 1956) – Writ Petition challenging the Constitutionality of the Act – High Court allowed the Writ petition by holding that the Act, 2004 was unconstitutional as the State Act was Decision Date : 24-01-2023 | Case No : CIVIL APPEAL No. 502/2023  |  Bench : 2 Judges
T. VALSAN (D) THR. LRS. & ORS.versusK. KANAGARAJ & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 3466/2023
Decision Date: 08-05-2023
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC502

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL*, ABHAY S. OKA, MANOJ MISRA Electricity Department, Group B (Technical) Assistant Engineer (Electrical) Recruitment Rules, 1979 – Promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) – Under the Rules, 80% of the vacancies for the post of Assistant Engineer were to be filled by direct recruitment – Out of this 80%, 50% were earmarked for those Junior Engineers who possessed Degree in Engineering with regular service of 3 years and the other 50% for those possessing Diploma with regular service of 7 years – Junior Engineers-private respondents, who were
HIND FILTERS LTD. & ANR.versusHIND FILTER EMPLOYEES’ UNION & ANR.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 8801/2012
Decision Date: 17-08-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC799

HIMA KOHLI*, RAJESH BINDAL HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: The stand taken by the appellants- Management was that in its establishment, there were more than 100 workmen, hence, reference of a dispute to the Labour Court was without jurisdiction and consequently, any award passed by the Labour Court whether the stand taken by the appellants-Management justifi ed. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Earlier, High Court had granted liberty for correction of factual error to substantiate that there were more than 100 workmen and the appellant could place on record the documents –
RAMKRISHNA FORGINGS LIMITEDversusRAVINDRA LOONKAR, RESOLUTION PROFESSION OF ACIL LIMITED & ANR.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 1527/2022
Decision Date: 21-11-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC1013

VIKRAM NATH*, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: The moot question involved is the extent of the jurisdiction and powers of the the issue of revaluation in the background of the admitted and undisputed factual position that no objection was raised by any quarter with regard to any defi ciency/irregularity, either by the RP or the appellant or the CoC, in fi nally approving the Resolution Plan which was sent to the
PAWAN KUMARversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3548/2023
Decision Date: 21-11-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC1012

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL*, SUDHANSHU DHULIA 261 : 2023 INSC 1012 261 CASE DETAILS PAWAN KUMAR v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 3548 of 2023) NOVEMBER 21, 2023 [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND SUDHANSHU DHULIA,JJ] HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: The question which arise for determination is whether the appellant was a of age – When exact assessment of the age cannot be done: Held: Age of a juvenile has to be determined on the basis of the date of the alleged commission of the crime – In a case of juvenility where two views are possible, a liberal approach should be undertaken –
PUBLIC INTEREST COMMITTEE FOR SCHEDULING SPECIFIC AREAS AND ANRversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Case No.: WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 443/2017
Decision Date: 23-11-2023
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC1086

D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Matter pertains to the scope of the Court’s power to issue directions for the grant of proportional representation for the Limboo-Tamang Scheduled Tribes in the and in the Legislative Assemblies of West Bengal and Sikkim in terms of the mandate of Articles 330 and 332 of the Constitution; and directions to the Delimitation Commission as well as the Election Commission to eff ectuate the mandate of Art. 332 of the Constitution, in respect of Limboo
PRASAD PRADHAN & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2025/2022
Decision Date: 24-01-2023
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC79

KRISHNA MURARI*, S. RAVINDRA BHAT Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 r/w s.34 – Murder – Prosecution case that appellant/accused and the victim were cousins – On the afternoon of 28.02.2012, when the victim was getting his land levelled through a JCB machine, the appellants (A-1 and A-2) reached the place and armed with an axe and he attacked the victim on the head – Against A-2, the allegation was that he was armed with an axe and had assaulted the victim on the legs – Regarding A-3, the grandson of A-1 and son of A-2, the allegation was that he went to the spot and caught hold of the
KISHAN CHAND JAINversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Case No.: WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 990/2021
Decision Date: 17-08-2023
Disposal: Directions issued
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC741

D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.B. PARDIWALA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration : Direction sought by Writ Petitioner to implement the mandate of s.4 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Right to Information Act, 2005 – ss. 3 and 4 – Obligation of public authorities Held : Power and accountability go hand in hand – While declaring that all citizens shall have the ‘right to information’ u/s.3 of the Act, the co- relative ‘duty’ in the form of obligation of public authorities is recognized in s.4 of the Act – The
P. KISHORE KUMARversusVITTAL K. PATKAR
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 7210/2011
Decision Date: 20-11-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC1009

BELA M. TRIVEDI*, DIPANKAR DATTA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: The plaintiff ’s vendor applied u/s. 9A of the Mysore (Personal & Miscellaneous) Inam Abolition Act, 1954 and sought occupancy rights in respect of 15 acres of Sy. No. 3. According to the plaintiff , the claim of the plaintiff ’s vendor succeeded Commissioner of Inams. However, the appellant-defendant alleged that the Commissioner’s order granted occupancy rights u/s. 9 in favour of his predecessor-in-interest. Trial Court after examining revenue records adduced by the plaintiff and the Commissioner’s order, held that the
MUNNA LALversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 490/2017
Decision Date: 24-01-2023
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC78

S. RAVINDRA BHAT*, DIPANKAR DATTA Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : s. 374(2) –Appeal from convictions – Murder of the complainant’s father – Previous enmity between the parties – On the fateful day, the appellants armed with weapons inflicted gun shot injuries and blows to the – FIR against the appellants – Surviving appellants convicted u/s. 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment – Upheld by the High Court – On appeal, held : PW-2 being inimical to the appellants, his testimony to be taken carefully – PW-3 was at the best, a chance
VIVEK KAISTH & ANRversusTHE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 6233/2023
Decision Date: 20-11-2023
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC1007

C.T. RAVIKUMAR*, SUDHANSHU DHULIA HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: The names of the two appellants herein were included later in the fi nal selection list vide notifi cation dated 27.12.2013 issued by the State Government. The High Court has held these two selections, and consequently the and these have been quashed. This Court has to examine the validity of the selection and appointment of these two appellants to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division), and whether they should now be unseated from their judicial offi ce. Service Law – Recruitment – Advertisement