Lucid Law

Search This Blog

Supreme Court

Get link
Facebook
X
Pinterest
Email
Other Apps

Get link
Facebook
X
Pinterest
Email
Other Apps

The Director of Town Panchayat & Ors. v. M. Jayabal & Ors.

Compassionate appointment, once accepted, cannot be re-opened to claim a higher post; belated claims defeat the very object of such appointment. Neutral Citation & Date: 2025 INSC 1423 · Decided on 12 December 2025 Case Title: The Director of Town Panchayat & Ors. v. M. Jayabal & Ors. (connected appeals) Court: Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Bench: Rajesh Bindal, J.; Manmohan, J. Background The respondents were dependants of deceased employees who had served as sweepers. Upon their fathers’ deaths, they applied for and were granted compassionate appointment as sweepers, which they accepted and joined. Several years later (after gaps of about three and nine years respectively), they filed writ petitions before the Madras High Court seeking appointment to the higher post of Junior Assistant, asserting that they were qualified at the time of initial appointment. The Single Judge allowed the claim, which was affi...

M/s Aarsuday Projects & Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. Jogen Chowdhury & Ors.

Background A PIL before the Calcutta High Court challenged a residential construction near Visva-Bharati University, alleging that it stood on ecologically sensitive “ khoai ” land and lacked competent permissions. The High Court ordered demolition, compensation, and action against officials. The developer, planning authority (SSDA), and flat purchasers appealed. Issues Framed 1. Whether the High Court was justified in concluding that the subject plot was “ khoai ” land warranting demolition. 2. Whether the High Court correctly exercised PIL jurisdiction to order demolition based on the material on record. 3. Whether the regulatory approvals and land-use permissions rendered the construction illegal. Court’s Reasoning • Nature of the land: The Court held that there was no clear, specific, or contemporaneous scientific evidence establishing that the subject plot itself was “ khoai ” land. Reports relied upon...

State of Maharashtra v. Reliance Industries Ltd. & Ors.

State can withdraw tax exemption in public interest, but must provide reasonable transition period to avoid undue hardship. Background Challenge to withdrawal/modification of electricity duty exemption granted to captive power producers. The State granted exemption under s. 5A Bombay Electricity Duty Act, 1958 to encourage captive generation. Notifications (2000–2001) curtailed/withdrew exemption. The High Court struck them down as arbitrary; the State appealed. Issues Framed Whether the State is legally empowered to withdraw or modify exemption granted under s. 5A . Whether such withdrawal violates doctrines of promissory estoppel , legitimate expectation , or Art. 14 Const. of India . Court’s Reasoning 1. Nature of exemption under s. 5A Rule: Exemption is a concession/privilege , not a vested right. Application: Beneficiaries have only a defeasible right to enjoy exemption during its currency. Holding: State retains power to withdraw/modify exemp...

Powered by Blogger

Adv.Yousuf Ali