Interim order passed by SC not to be handed out by HC

Jamal Ahmad v. State of UP, 2003 6 AWC5294All

"Here in the instant case, only the interim order has been passed in SLP. We do not know the grounds taken by the Petitioners in that SLP. This Court has no authority to expand or restrict the operation of the interim order passed by the Apex Court."

Proxy Counsel rightly not allowed by NCDRC

Lawyers cannot appearance unless authorized  by AOR or the litigant

Surendra Mohan Arora v. HDFC Ltd & Ors, 

dated April 25, 2014 in CIVIL APPEAL NO.4891 OF2014

Passing an order different from what is pronounced in open court

Kushalbhai Ratanbhai Rohit & Ors. Vs. The State of Gujarat, 

Section 362 Cr.P.C. puts an embargo to call, recall or review any judgment or order passed in criminal case once it has been pronounced and signed. Unless it is pronounced AND signed, the said provision will not trigger.

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.453 of 2014 dt. May 6, 2014

Order 2 Rule 2 : How to Apply

12. The Courts in order to determine whether a suit is barred by Order 2 Rule 2 must examine the cause of action pleaded by the plaintiff in his plaints filed in the relevant suits (See: S. Nazeer Ahmed v. State Bank of Mysore & Ors., (2007) 11 SCC 75). Considering the technicality of the plea of Order 2 Rule 2, both the plaints must be read as a whole to identify the cause of action, which is necessary to establish a claim or necessary for the plaintiff to prove if traversed. Therefore, after identifying the cause of action if it is found that the cause of action pleaded in both the suits is identical and the relief claimed in the subsequent suit could have been pleaded in the earlier suit, then the subsequent suit is barred by Order 2 Rule 2.

Coffee Board Vs. M/s. Ramesh Exports Pvt. Ltd., Judgment dated  May 9, 2014 in CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5527 OF 2014 

Court has no power to condone delay in filing an application challenging arbitration award

M/s Engineer Builder & Associated v. Union of India, (2014) 2 SCALE 278

Benefit of judgment in service law extended also to non-appealing party

Karri Ram Babu v. Chairman, State Level Police Recruitment Board, Hyderabad, (2014) 6 SCALE 24

Judgment dated July 11, 2013 in C.A. No. 11387/2013

 

One of the persons affected has not travelled to this Hon'ble Court. If the same is owing to financial constraint, justice shall not be denied to him on that count. For doing complete justice in this cause, we make it clear that the benefit of this judgment shall be available to the third petitioner also, in case he is interested.

Government allowed to change its policy

MP Mathur & Ors v. OIC & Ors, 2006 (13) SCC 706

 

Once the public interest is accepted as the superior equity which can override individual equity, the principle would be applicable. If there is a supervening public equity, the Government would be allowed to change its stand and has the power to withdraw from representation made by it which induced persons to take certain steps which may have gone adverse to the interest of such persons on account of such withdrawal. Merely because the resolution was announced for a particular period it did not mean that the Government could not amend and change the policy under any circumstances.

 

See also : Rishi Kiran Logistics decided in April, 2014  (by Sikri J)