Judgments
Supreme Court
Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd. v. E.S.I. Corporation and Ors.
MANU/SC/0241/2016
29.02.2016
Insurance
Casual workers covered under Employees State Insurance Act, 1948
The Supreme Court rejected submissions of the Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd. that casual workers employed by it were outside the ambit of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. Terming such an approach "tenuous", the Court held the Club liable for making contributions to the Employees State Insurance Corporation, with interest. The Club's submissions before the Court that being temporary staff, engaged on race-days for issuing tickets, were not covered as 'employees' under the Act were rejected. Also were rejected 'consent terms' evidence such a status quo as the same pertained to an earlier period in which other establishments of the Turf Club were also covered.
Relevant
Employees State Insurance Corporation v. Hyderabad Race Club MANU/SC/0554/2004
Employees' State Insurance Corporation v. Gnanambikai Mills Ltd. MANU/TN/0308/1974
Section 2 Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948
Tags : state insurance employee contribution
Share : 
Top
High Court of Madras
Amalorpavam Higher Secondary School v. Union of India and Ors.
MANU/TN/0234/2016
29.02.2016
Education
Government cannot fix fees for unaided private schools
Constitution of a Fee Committee to fix and collect fees in private schools unaided by government funds is beyond the powers of the government of Puducherry. The Madras High Court was unequivocal in its determination that such was "illegal, invalid and unenforceable endeavour", while noting the virtues of the Petitioner-school that had managed to provide adequate educations facilities and faculty to middle and lower-middle income students despite charging only nominal fee and not receiving aid from the government. The government sought to confer power and authority on itself by the Puducherry School Education (Amendment) Rules, 2014 and Puducherry School Education Act, 1987 to regulate different stages of education and courses of instruction, and various aspects of regulations in the field of education, including permission to establish a school, its recognition, withdrawal of recognition and fee. The authorities are also conferred with the power of conducting audit and to maintain financial control.
Relevant
Union of India v. S. Srinivasan MANU/SC/0496/2012
State of Kerala vs. K.M. Charia Abdullah and Co. MANU/SC/0265/1964
Tags : unaided private school fixation of fees puducherry
Share :
Top
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Union of India and Ors. v. Ranjan Kumar
MANU/CF/0046/2016
26.02.2016
Consumer
Passenger to be compensated for theft even in non-identification of railway employee
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ruled that the Indian Railways is liable to compensate a passenger for the loss suffered on account of the theft committed by a railway employee. It added that in instances of theft, it may not always be possible to identify the employee or locate him or her even if it is established that the loss to the consumer took place on account of the misconduct of the employee. It interpreted the Consumer Protection Act and various Supreme Court judgments to vitiate Railways' arguments avoiding liability for the lost or stolen luggage. The Commission also equated "the view of the Supreme Court in the cases where the complainants suffer on account of negligence of the State employee would equally apply in a case where he suffers on account of the misconduct such as theft or misappropriation."
The Railways had argued that loss or damage of a passenger's luggage by one of its employees would not vicariously make it liable for damages.
Relevant
Section 2 Railways Act, 1989
Section 100 Railways Act, 1989
N. Nagendra Rao & Co. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh MANU/SC/0530/1994
S.K. Alagh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. MANU/SC/7162/2008
Tags : railways employee theft vicarious liability
Share :
Top
Supreme Court
State of Kerala v. P.B. Sourabhan and Ors.
MANU/SC/0269/2016
04.03.2016
Criminal
No bar on Police Chief to appoint officer for investigation outside territorial jurisdiction
The State Police Chief or Director General of Police is empowered to appoint a superior officer to investigate a crime case registered outside the territorial jurisdiction of such officer. The Supreme Court disagreed with the finding of the High Court that such an exercise of powers was in excess of the powers under Section 36 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It noted that such a conclusion could not be reached on a reading of Section 36 of the CrPC as it contained no direct bar to the effect; rather "It is the satisfaction of the State Police Chief, in the light of the facts of a given case, that would be determinative of the appointment to be made in which situation the limits of jurisdiction will not act as fetter or come in the way of exercise of such jurisdiction by the superior officer so appointed."
Relevant
Section 36 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Act
Tags : police appointment officer territorial jurisdiction
Share :
Top
High Court of Delhi
Capri Bathaid Private Limited and Ors. v. Commissioner of Trade and Taxes
MANU/DE/0501/2016
02.03.2016
Sales Tax/VAT
CVAT castigated for frequent illegal exercise of powers
Section 87(6) of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 does not enable officers undertaking search and seizure operations under Section 60 of the Act to collect tax dues on the spot from the dealer wholes premises is searched, the Delhi High Court held. The Court also rebuked the Department's failure to issue clear and unambiguous instructions to its officers on the exercise of their powers and jurisdiction. It noted the alarming frequency with which cases regarding flagrant misuse of power were reaching courts. The CVAT was ordered to "issue clear instructions that no VAT Authority will collect in cash or by cheque any alleged tax demand on the spot/field while undertaking a survey, or a search or seizure operation...if any of the officers of the DT and T are found violating any of the instructions, they would be subject to disciplinary proceedings."
Relevant
Bansal Dyechem Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax MANU/DE/2865/2015
The Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P. vs. Suraj Prasad Gouri Shankar MANU/SC/0568/1972
Packirisamy vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (Enforcement I), Tiruvarur, MANU/TN/2475/2005
Section 87 Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004
Tags : delhi vat officials exercise of power
Share :
Top
High Court of Delhi
Kanhaiya Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi
MANU/DE/0498/2016
02.03.2016
Criminal
Court turns into literature school granting Kanhaiya bail
The Delhi High Court hymned a few verses answering the conundrum "why the colour of peace is eluding the prestigious Jawaharlal Nehru University". It granted Kanhaiya Kumar interim bail for six months in proceedings ongoing for seditious comments and violent acts at a politically-charged rally comprising students of JNU. The Court noted that being of the "intellectual class" Kumar could have any political or ideological affiliation, and had the right to pursue the same within the framework of the Constitution. To afford time to introspect on the events that had culminated in the arrest of Kumar and provide "antibiotic" to cure the "infection", the Court was inclined to granting an opportunity to return to the main stream. Kumar was also granted monetary concession: instead of requiring a cash bond to avail of bail, the Court prohibited him from participating actively or passively from activities that may be termed anti-national.
Relevant
State through C.B.I. vs. Amarmani Tripathi MANU/SC/0677/2005
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and Anr. MANU/SC/0214/2004
Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India (UOI) MANU/SC/0329/2015
Tags : Kanhaiya kumar sedition bail
Share :