“MY DADDY IS A MOVIE ACTOR, AND SOMETIMES HE PLAYS THE GOOD GUY, AND SOMETIMES HE PLAYS THE LAWYERS.”
NEWS – SUPREME COURT
Ragini Sinha v. State of Bihar and Ors
Concurrent findings of fact under Minimum Wages Act cannot be interfered with lightly – Supreme Court
The Supreme Court upheld orders directing payment of minimum wages and penalty to workers employed by the Appellant.
The Court held that concurrent findings of fact recorded by competent authorities were binding and did not warrant interference in writ proceedings.
The Court further observed that authorities under the Minimum Wages Act possess statutory power to impose penalties once violations are established.
Kamal Kumar v. Premlata Joshi and Ors
Specific performance is a discretionary and equitable relief – Supreme Court
The Supreme Court reiterated that grant of specific performance depends upon satisfaction of statutory and equitable requirements.
The Court explained that readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform contractual obligations remains the most important factor while granting relief.
The Court upheld concurrent findings dismissing the suit after finding failure to establish readiness and willingness.
Birla Institute of Technology v. The State of Jharkhand and Ors
Teachers are not employees under the Payment of Gratuity Act – Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that teachers do not fall within the definition of “employee” under Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
The Court relied upon the earlier judgment in Ahmedabad Private Primary Teachers Association and set aside the High Court order granting gratuity benefits.
The ruling clarified that teaching staff are not entitled to gratuity under the Act unless specifically covered by statutory amendment.
Management of the Barara Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Society Ltd v. Pratap Singh
Regularisation of service does not amount to fresh employment – Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that Section 25(H) of the Industrial Disputes Act applies only where fresh vacancies are filled after retrenchment.
The Court clarified that regularisation of existing employees does not create a right of re-employment for retrenched workers.
The Labour Court award in favour of the employer was restored.
NEWS – HIGH COURT AND TRIBUNALS
Bijal Packaging and Ors v. C.C.E. & S.T., Ahmedabad
Job work valuation should be based on transaction value – CESTAT
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal held that valuation of job-worked goods should be determined on the basis of sale prices charged to independent buyers.
The Tribunal also held that Cenvat Credit cannot be denied merely because invoices were issued in the name of the principal manufacturer.
The matter was remanded for re-quantification of duty while penalties imposed upon the appellants were set aside.
The State of Tripura v. Bimal Chakraborty and Ors
Magistrate must independently assess police reports before taking cognizance – Tripura High Court
The Tripura High Court reiterated that Magistrates are not bound by conclusions drawn by investigating officers while considering police reports under Section 173 of the CrPC.
The Court held that multiple charge sheets filed during continuing investigation must be treated as one composite police report.
The Special Judge’s decision refusing immediate cognizance was upheld.
Prempal and Ors v. State
Evidence of injured witnesses carries strong evidentiary value – Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court upheld convictions under Sections 323 and 324 IPC after relying upon testimony of injured eyewitnesses corroborated by medical evidence.
The Court observed that statements of injured witnesses are ordinarily reliable unless major contradictions are established.
The revision petition was partly allowed for one accused while convictions of others were maintained.
