admin_nupur

V. Senthil Balaji Vs. The State represented by Deputy Director and Ors. Criminal Appeal Nos. 2284-2285 of 2023 @ SLP (Criminal) Nos. 8939-8940 of 2023]

V. Senthil Balaji Vs. The State represented by Deputy Director and Ors. [Criminal Appeal Nos. 2284-2285 of 2023 @ SLP (Criminal) Nos. 8939-8940 of 2023] [Criminal Appeal Nos. 2288-2289 of 2023 @ SLP (Criminal) Nos. 8652-8653 of 2023] [Criminal Appeal No.__2286 of 2023 @ SLP (Criminal) No. 7437/2023] [Criminal Appeal No._2287__of 2023 @ SLP (Criminal) […]

V. Senthil Balaji Vs. The State represented by Deputy Director and Ors. Criminal Appeal Nos. 2284-2285 of 2023 @ SLP (Criminal) Nos. 8939-8940 of 2023] Read More »

Kamal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)[Criminal Appeal No. 465 of 2017][Criminal Appeal No._______ of 2023 arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 6213 of 2021]B.R. Gavai, J.1

Kamal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)[Criminal Appeal No. 465 of 2017][Criminal Appeal No._______ of 2023 arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 6213 of 2021]B.R. Gavai, J.1. Leave granted in appeal arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 6213 of 2021.2. The appeals challenge the judgment and order dated 5th August 2014 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New

Kamal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)[Criminal Appeal No. 465 of 2017][Criminal Appeal No._______ of 2023 arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 6213 of 2021]B.R. Gavai, J.1 Read More »

State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Jagjit Singh. Citation:1989 Supp (2) SCC 70.

⭐ SC: Evidence Act, Sec. 132 – What is or is not ‘compulsion’ to answer – A witness is legally bound to answer any question which is relevant to the matter in issue even if the answer to such question is likely to criminate him directly or indirectly. Proviso to Section 132 expressly provides that

State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Jagjit Singh. Citation:1989 Supp (2) SCC 70. Read More »

MEERA YADAV & ANR.VERSESEMAAR MGF LAND LTD. Consumer Case No. 197 of 2020-Decided on 13.4.2023

III (2023) CPJ 34 (NC) NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSALCOMMISSION, NEW DELHI MEERA YADAV & ANR.VERSESEMAAR MGF LAND LTD. Consumer Case No. 197 of 2020-Decided on 13.4.2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Sections 2(1)(g), 14(1)(d), 21(a)(i) – Housing Booking of duplex apartment – Change of apartment into single floor apartment with approval from complainants Delay in 1

MEERA YADAV & ANR.VERSESEMAAR MGF LAND LTD. Consumer Case No. 197 of 2020-Decided on 13.4.2023 Read More »

* State Of Punjab & Ors vs Rafiq Masih  * Thomas Daniel vs State Of Kerala . 

1.State Of Punjab & Ors vs Rafiq Masih  2.Thomas Daniel vs State Of Kerala .  माननीय सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने उपरोक्त दोनों याचिकाओं को निस्तारित करते हुए वर्ष 2014 और वर्ष 2022 में अपने आदेश में कहा किकिसी कर्मचारी को किए गए अतिरिक्त भुगतान को उसके सेवानिवृत्त होने के बाद इस आधार पर नहीं वसूला जा सकता कि उक्तवेतन वृद्धि गलती से हुई थी। कर्मचारी को किए गए अतिरिक्त भुगतान को उसके सेवानिवृत्त होने के बाद इस आधार पर नहीं वसूला जा सकता कि उक्त वेतन वृद्धिगलती से हुई थी। जस्टिस एसए नजीर और जस्टिस विक्रम नाथ ने कहा, अतिरिक्त भुगतान की वसूली पर अदालतों द्वारा रोकइसलिए नहीं लगाई जाती कि यह कर्मचारी का अधिकार है, बल्कि कर्मचारी को होने वाली मुश्किलों से राहत देने के लिए न्यायिकविवेक के आधार पर ऐसा किया जाता है। अगर कर्मचारी को किए गए अतिरिक्त भुगतान का कारण उसकी ओर से किसी तरह की धोखाधड़ी, गलत दस्तावेज पेश करने केकारण नहीं है तो इसे वापस नहीं वसूला जा सकता। अगर यह भुगतान कंपनी / नियोक्ता/सरकार की ओर से गलत हिसाब करने याभत्तों की गणना में गलती से किया गया हो तब भी इसे सेवानिवृत्त होने के बाद वापस नहीं वसूला जा सकता। सरकारी कर्मचारी खासतौर से निचले पायदान वाला व्यक्ति अपनी आमदनी का खासा हिस्सा अपने परिवार के कल्याण में खर्च करदेता है। अगर उसे अतिरिक्त भुगतान लंबे समय तक किया जाएगा तो वह यही समझेगा कि वह इसे पाने का पात्र है।  निम्न परिस्थितियों में / निम्न कर्मचारियों से रिकवरी नही की जा सकती है। (i) तृतीय श्रेणी और चतुर्थ श्रेणी सेवा (या समूह सी और समूह डी सेवा) से संबंधित कर्मचारियों से वसूली। Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service). (ii) सेवानिवृत्त कर्मचारियों, या ऐसे कर्मचारी जो एक वर्ष के भीतर सेवानिवृत्त होने वाले हैं, से वसूली के आदेश की वसूली। Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within

* State Of Punjab & Ors vs Rafiq Masih  * Thomas Daniel vs State Of Kerala .  Read More »