“JUSTICE IS INCIDENTAL TO LAW AND ORDER.”
EMPLOYMENT
Rajneesh Khajuria v. Wockhardt Ltd
Supreme Court examines jurisdiction of Labour Court and concept of malice in law
The Supreme Court examined the jurisdiction of the Labour Court while discussing the concept of “malice in law”.
The Court observed that malice in law refers to an act done wrongfully without lawful excuse or reasonable cause.
The Bench held that transfer of an employee after nearly twenty years of service to the company headquarters could not automatically be treated as mala fide or vindictive.
The Judgement can be accessed at:
View Details
Pawan Hans Limited & Ors v. Aviation Karmachari Sanghatana & Ors
Contractual employees entitled to provident fund benefits under EPF Act – Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that contractual employees engaged by Pawan Hans Limited are entitled to provident fund benefits under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.
The Court observed that the definition of “employee” under both the company’s PF Trust Regulations and the EPF Act is broad enough to include contractual workers drawing wages directly or indirectly from the employer.
The Bench further held that the company failed to establish any valid exemption from applicability of the EPF Act.
The Judgement can be accessed at:
View Details
CONTRACTS
Mohammed Siddique & Anr v. National Insurance Company Ltd & Ors
Violation of traffic law alone does not establish contributory negligence – Supreme Court
The Supreme Court clarified principles governing contributory negligence in motor accident compensation cases.
The Court held that merely riding triple-seat on a motorcycle, though unlawful, does not automatically establish contributory negligence unless a direct causal connection with the accident or resulting injury is proved.
The Bench observed that contributory negligence applies only where violation of law either contributed to occurrence of the accident or aggravated its consequences.
The Judgement can be accessed at:
View Details
ENVIRONMENT
M C Mehta v. Union of India and Ors
Supreme Court reiterates directions to combat air pollution in Delhi and NCR
The Supreme Court issued and reiterated directions aimed at addressing severe air pollution in Delhi and the National Capital Region.
The Court directed that decisions taken by the High-Level Committee constituted earlier be placed on record along with a comprehensive action plan and implementation status.
The Judgement can be accessed at:
View Details
Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union of India
Supreme Court appoints NEERI to oversee compliance with environmental safeguards
The Supreme Court examined concerns relating to environmental clearance granted for a major infrastructure project, including impact on forests, ecologically sensitive areas and natural water channels.
The Court noted deficiencies in disclosure of environmental information by the project proponent and imposed multiple mitigation conditions.
The Bench appointed the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute to monitor compliance with environmental directions and safeguards.
The Judgement can be accessed at:
View Details
PROPERTY
Fair Communication and Consultants & Anr v. Surendra Kerdile
Burden to prove benami transaction lies on person asserting it – Supreme Court
The Supreme Court reiterated that the burden of proving a benami transaction rests upon the person making such an allegation.
The Court emphasized that clear and convincing evidence is necessary to establish that a property transaction is benami in nature.
The Judgement can be accessed at:
View Details
