Solicitor can be restrained from using information gained from one client for being used against him

Rakusen v Ellis, Munday & Clarke,  [1912] 1 Ch. 831 (Court of Appeal)

 

 

Necessity of framing Points of Determination in First Appeal as per Order 41 Rule 31

A.M. Sangappa @ Sangappa v. Sangodeppa, 2013 (14) SCALE 384

See also (2010) 13 SCC 530

Sent from BlackBerry® on Airtel

Adjudication to be confined to the objectors alone

(1993) 4 SCC 255

 

Supreme Court held that High Court erred in quashing the whole Section 6 notification rather than confining such quashing to only the objectors who had approached the court. Matter remanded back to the High Court for individualised justice.

Law as on the date of application to be applicable

Rules which are prevalent as on the date when the application is considered are to be applied and not the date when the application is made. Somdev Kapoor v. State of West Bengal & Ors, 2013 (12) SCALE 434

Leave to appeal is a must from AFT

While filing any appeal to Supreme Court from AFT order, either the applicant has to take leave from AFT itself or must make an application for grant of leave to appeal. 2013 (5) SCALE 258  Naib Subedar Naresh Chand v. Union of India

SBI v. Palak Modi

            SBI v. Palak Modi (2013) 3 SCC 607 – even probationers entitled to natural justice when termination is punitive.

Relief when not be extended to third parties

BSNL v. Ghanshyam Dass (2), (2011) 4 SCC 374 at page 382

 

25. The principle laid down in K.I. Shephard [(1987) 4 SCC 431 : 1987 SCC (L&S) 438] that it is not necessary for every person to approach the court for relief and it is the duty of the authority to extend the benefit of a concluded decision in all similar cases without driving every affected person to court to seek relief would apply only in the following circumstances:

(a) where the order is made in a petition filed in a representative capacity on behalf of all similarly situated employees;

(b) where the relief granted by the court is a declaratory relief which is intended to apply to all employees in a particular category, irrespective of whether they are parties to the litigation or not;

(c) where an order or rule of general application to employees is quashed without any condition or reservation that the relief is restricted to the petitioners before the court; and

(d) where the court expressly directs that the relief granted should be extended to those who have not approached the court.

 

26. On the other hand, where only the affected parties approach the court and relief is given to those parties, the fence-sitters who did not approach the court cannot claim that such relief should have been extended to them thereby upsetting or interfering with the rights which had accrued to others.