We -vs- Carona = Who is the winner ?

Our PM & CM called us to donate Can not we give our 21 days like Ayappa , Ramazan , Velanginima Dikshas We do nothing With out going to the notice of Carona Smartly Allow our PM & CM to give a beautiful world కరాళ గంటికలు మ్రోగిస్తూ దాని కంటికి కనపడకుండా చిన్న సత్యం తెలిసి మనమంటేనే —… Read More We -vs- Carona = Who is the winner ?

whether a construction worker who is registered under the Building and Other Construction Workers’ (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 19961 and is a beneficiary of the Scheme made under the Rules framed pursuant to the enactment, is a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

1REPORTABLEIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCivil Appeal No 2014 of 2020(Arising out of SLP(C) No 2150 of 2020)The Joint Labour Commissioner andRegistering Officer and Anr AppellantsVersusKesar Lal RespondentJ U D G M E N TDr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J1 The neat issue which has to be adjudicated upon in this appeal is whether… Read More whether a construction worker who is registered under the Building and Other Construction Workers’ (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 19961 and is a beneficiary of the Scheme made under the Rules framed pursuant to the enactment, is a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

quashing of the Detention Orders Since there was complete inaction on part of the Detaining Authority in the present case, to whom a representation was addressed in dealing with the representation as stated above, we hold that the constitutional rights of the detenues were violated and the detenues are entitled to redressal on that count. We, therefore, allow this Writ Petition and hold the continued detention of the detenues in terms of the Detention Orders to be illegal, invalid and unconstitutional. -it would be proper for the appropriate Government to wait till the report was received from the Advisory Board, while at the same time the Writ Petition (Criminal) No.362 of 2019 Ankit Ashok Jalan vs. Union of India & Ors. 62 specially empowered officer who had acted as the Detaining Authority would be obliged to consider the representation with utmost expedition.

Writ Petition (Criminal) No.362 of 2019Ankit Ashok Jalan vs. Union of India & Ors.1REPORTABLEIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTIONWRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.362 OF 2019ANKIT ASHOK JALAN …PetitionerVersusUNION OF IDNIA AND ORS. …RespondentsJ U D G M E N TUday Umesh Lalit, J. This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India prays… Read More quashing of the Detention Orders Since there was complete inaction on part of the Detaining Authority in the present case, to whom a representation was addressed in dealing with the representation as stated above, we hold that the constitutional rights of the detenues were violated and the detenues are entitled to redressal on that count. We, therefore, allow this Writ Petition and hold the continued detention of the detenues in terms of the Detention Orders to be illegal, invalid and unconstitutional. -it would be proper for the appropriate Government to wait till the report was received from the Advisory Board, while at the same time the Writ Petition (Criminal) No.362 of 2019 Ankit Ashok Jalan vs. Union of India & Ors. 62 specially empowered officer who had acted as the Detaining Authority would be obliged to consider the representation with utmost expedition.

Set aside exparte decree – the suit claim was for damages. The damages to the property if any, can be ascertained only after the parties adduce the oral and documentary evidence. We have no reason to believe that the appellant would have benefitted by deliberately not contesting the suit as they would in any event be saddled with interest if their conduct was to drag and prolong the suit.

NON-REPORTABLEIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1890-1891 OF 2020(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.5374-5375 of 2019)AVIATION TRAVELS PVT. LTD. …AppellantVERSUSBHAVESHA SURESH GORADIAAND OTHERS …RespondentsJ U D G M E N TR. BANUMATHI, J.Leave granted. These appeals arise out of the impugned judgment dated09.07.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay… Read More Set aside exparte decree – the suit claim was for damages. The damages to the property if any, can be ascertained only after the parties adduce the oral and documentary evidence. We have no reason to believe that the appellant would have benefitted by deliberately not contesting the suit as they would in any event be saddled with interest if their conduct was to drag and prolong the suit.

Divorce – can not be granted on subsequent events of filing of criminal cases and it’s dismissal

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1912­1913 OF 2020(Arising out of SLP (CIVIL) Nos.2704­2705 of 2019)Mangayakarasi .…Appellant(s)VersusM. Yuvaraj …. Respondent(s)J U D G M E N TA.S. Bopanna,J. The appellant is before this Court assailing thejudgment dated 20.07.2018 passed by the High Court ofJudicature at Madras in CMSA Nos.23 & 24… Read More Divorce – can not be granted on subsequent events of filing of criminal cases and it’s dismissal

Interpretation of Will Deed whether the right vested in Nirmala Murthy was absolute in nature.? Apex court held that it was absolute in nature – as the Will not imposed any restictions by saying that after the death of his wife and further main clause prevails over the lame clause.

NON­REPORTABLEIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1798­1799 OF 2014M.S. BHAVANI AND ANR. …APPELLANTSVERSUSM.S. RAGHU NANDAN ….RESPONDENTSJ U D G M E N TMOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J. The instant appeals arise out of the common finaljudgment and order dated 01.10.2012 passed by the High Courtof Karnataka at Bangalore in R.F.A. No. 1888/2011… Read More Interpretation of Will Deed whether the right vested in Nirmala Murthy was absolute in nature.? Apex court held that it was absolute in nature – as the Will not imposed any restictions by saying that after the death of his wife and further main clause prevails over the lame clause.