Provision For Upper Age Limit Is Mandatory & Can't Be Relaxed
The case was of the State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Shaheena Masarat and Anr. The decision was given by Justices L Nageswara Rao and Sanjiv Khanna. The Court held that there could not be scope of arbitrary selections by unfettered discretion being vested in the authorities. Provisions relating to the upper age limit should be construed as "mandatory" and not "directory".
What do you think about this case?
Irrigation Department Of State Not An Industrial Establishment Under S. 25L Of the ID Act
The case was of State of Madhya Pradesh v.Somdutt Sharma. The decision was given by Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Abhay Oka. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgements and orders and held that Sharma's termination of employment was legal and valid. The Court observed that the Irrigation Department of the State of Madhya Pradesh is not an "industrial establishment" under Section 25L of the Industrial Disputes Act.
What do you think of this case?
Non Compoundable Criminal Cases Of Predominantly Private Natire Can Be Quashed U/S 482 CrPC
The case was of Ramgopal v. State of Madhya Pradesh. The decision was given by CJI NV Ramana and Justice Surya Kant. The Supreme Court observed that a High Court can quash criminal proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences are non-compoundable and the compromise is reached after conviction.
What do you think about this case?
No Statutory Bar Against Minor Becoming Swami: Karnataka HC
The case was of P Lathavya Acharya and the State of Karnataka. The decision was given by a division bench of Acting Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum. It was held by the Court that there was no legal bar against a minor becoming a swami.
What do you think about this case?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
