Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“By excluding persons engaged in cleaning of excreta with the help of protective gear from the definition of ‘manual scavengers’, has deprived them of the benefits pertaining to rehabilitation, scholarships, etc. for which they are equally eligible.”
The Court clarified that there may be cases of arbitrary exercise of power under the anti-profiteering mechanism by enlarging the scope of the proceedings beyond the jurisdiction or on account of not considering the genuine basis of variations in other factors such as cost escalations on account of which the reduction stands offset, skewed input credit situations etc.
“Regulations and Byelaws framed under Section 204 IBC clearly provide checks and balances. Therefore, it cannot be said to be confirmation of excessive or unbridled power”
“The petitioner herein, which has filed the present writ petition, is only a proprietorship firm and not a citizen and therefore cannot claim protection of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.”
“It is settled law that the Act provides a complete machinery for assessment or re-assessment of tax and the assessee is not permitted to abandon that machinery to invoke jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.”
“IBC does not suffer from any manifest arbitrariness to violate Article 14 of the Constitution”
Supreme Court also sought assistance from Attorney General for India, R. Venkataramani.
The issue under consideration was whether the ABC Rules, 2023 unjustly exclude individual veterinarians from the animal birth control programme, thereby infringing upon their constitutional rights.
“Fiscal legislation having uniform application to all registered persons, cannot be said to be violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and the question of such statutory provision being violative of Article 302 of the Constitution and in teeth of Article 13 of the Constitution of India does not arise at all.”
The Agniveer Scheme will increase the ‘leader to led ratio from 1.1 to 1.28; a ratio that would aspire confidence and would ease the pressure of the forces on the ground.
Supreme Court: In a case raising questions on the Constitutional validity of sub-sections (7) and (8) of Section 4 [introduced
Delhi High Court: In a case filed by the petitioners challenging the vires of Section 17 of the Maintenance and
“When the legislature acts within its power to usher in a valid law and rectify a legal error, even after a court ruling, the legislature exercises its constitutional power to enact the law and does not overrule an earlier court decision.”
Supreme Court: The Bench comprising of A.M. Khanwilkar, Abhay S. Oka and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ., directed Maharashtra State Election Commission to expeditiously
Meghalaya High Court: The Division Bench of Biswanath Somadder, CJ. and H. S. Thangkhiew, J., dealt with a PIL which was filed
Madhya Pradesh High Court: The Division Bench of Mohammad Rafiq, CJ. and Vijay Kumar Shukla, J., heard a writ petition which was
“A claim to refund is governed by statute. There is no constitutional entitlement to seek a refund.”
Madras High Court: The Division Bench of Sanjib Banerjee, CJ and Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J., while addressing a riveting issue wherein a political
Jharkhand High Court: A Full Bench of H.C. Mishra, Shree Chandrashekhar and Deepak Roshan JJ., while deciding on the validity of the
Kerala High Court: A Division Bench of S. Manikumar and Shaji P. Chaly, JJ., while deciding the Constitutional validity of the Kerala