Co-promisor alone can sue for specific performance

AIR 1937 Nag 186

(2009) 3 SCC 141

Supplementing Order by Counter Affidavit

To defend the impugned order, an authority can rely on reasons stated in the order or those on record and cannot provide additional reasons by filing an affidavit . (2005) 7 SCC 627 HPCL v. Darius Shapur

Unconscionable term in the Agreement regarding rehabilitation with the Government of displaced landowners

The Supreme Court applied BrojoNath Ganguly, .. the High Court was not right in refusing to direct the Corporation and othe rofifical respondents to pay compensation to the appellants at par with other landowners. 2013 (10) SCALE 450 Daulat Sitaram Kodne v. State of Maharashtra

 

 

Direction issued for implementation of COTPA

(2013) 10 SCALE  Health for Millions v. Union of India & Ors,

 

Direction issued to Central Government and State Government to rigorously implement the 2003 Act and 2004 Rules.

Cancellation of Promotion After 11 Years

Kusheshwar Nath Pandey v. State of Bihar, (2013) 10 SCALE 227

 

The appellant was not at all in any way at fault. It was time bound promotion which was given to the Appellant. In absence of any fault of the Appellant, the promotion granted by the Respondents cannot be cancelled after 11 years.

Vesting of Right of Appointment (Compassionate)

SBI v. Raj Kumar, (2010) 11 SCC 661

MGB Gramin Bank v. Chakrawarti Singh, (2013) 10 SCALE 223

 

As the appointment on compassionate ground may not be aimed as a matter of right  nor an applicant becomes entitled automatically for appointment, rather it depends on various other circumstances, i.e. eligibility and financial conditions of the family, etc. the application has to be considered in accordance with the scheme.

 

Presumption of Delivery by Registered Post

Coal India Ltd. v. Ananta Saha, (2011) 5 SCC 142 at page 154

23. Similarly, we find no force in the submission made by the delinquent that he did not participate in the disciplinary proceedings and did not make any comment on receiving the enquiry report along with the second show-cause notice as the notices had not been served upon him in accordance with law. The second show-cause notice and the copy of the enquiry report had been sent to him under registered post. Therefore, there is a presumption in law, particularly, under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and Section 114, Illustration (f) of the Evidence Act, 1872 that the addressee has received the materials sent by post. (Vide Greater Mohali Area Development Authority v. Manju Jain [(2010) 9 SCC 157 : (2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 639 : AIR 2010 SC 3817] .)