Uncategorized

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 […]

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

JAIN CLINIC PVT. LTD vs SUDESH RCREV 136/12 22/08/13 [ Manmohan JJ ] [ DELHI HIGH COURT ]

State of Karnataka Lokayukta Police Vs. S. Subbegowda[Criminal Appeal No. 1598 of 2023]Bela M. Trivedi, J.1. The appellant – State of Karnataka Lokayukta Police by way of instant appeal has assailed the judgment and order dated 16.08.2018 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Criminal Petition No. 4463 of 2018 whereby the High

I (2013) DMC 229CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT RANJANA KAMBLEversusRANJANA VIMALTAI & ORS. Civil Revision No. 25 of 2011-Decided on 17.4.2012 (i) Indian Succession Act, 1925- Sections 372, 384(3)- Succession Certificate Grant of Validity Unchastity of a wife is certainly a ground for divorce but in the absence of decree of divorce, cannot be pressed into service

The Credibility of Hostile Witnesses: Unraveling the Complexities of Testimony   Introduction  In a court of law, witness testimonies play a pivotal role in ascertaining the truth and ensuring justice is served. However, not all witnesses provide impartial and reliable accounts. Hostile witnesses, in particular, can present significant challenges to the credibility of their testimony.

I (2013) DMC 123 (DB)PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT PREET RANJAN KAURversusHARJIT SINGH & ANR. Amended Crl. WP No. 978 of 2012-Decided on 16.11.2012 (i) Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 Section 6-Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 – Section 25 – Custody of Child Guardianship – Welfare of child is of utmost consideration – Child