Posts

Showing posts with the label Constitution

Must Read

M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb, 1964

Image
M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb, (1964) 6 SCR 642, 651 This case interpretation/case summary is written by Ms. Swati Sharma a student at the Faculty of Law (Delhi University). If you also want to publish your articles or case interpretations/summaries, send your work to  niyamskanoon09@gmail.com . Case Details PETITIONER:  MRS. M. N. CLUBWALA AND ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: FIDA HUSSAIN SAHEB AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/02/1964 BENCH: MUDHOLKAR, J.R. SUBBARAO, K. CITATION: 1965 AIR 610 1964 SCR (6) 642 Introduction   The case of M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb (1964) under the Delhi Rent Control Act is a landmark judgment that clarifies the distinction between a lease and a license and the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller. The primary issue in this case was whether the agreements between the landlord (M.N. Clubwala) and the shopkeepers (Fida Hussain Saheb) created a lease or a license.  Facts of the Case M.N. Clubwala (Landlord) used his building as market by
Post a Comment
Read more

Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC477

Image
Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC 477||Case Summary  Introduction  In this appeal, the Court has interpreted Article 15(4) of the Fundamental Right. It has been added by the 1st Amendment Act, of 1951. Facts The State of Haryana instructed Maharshi Dayanand University (MDU), Rohtak to conduct entrance examination for MD/MS/PG courses for the Session 2008-2009. The appellant made a representation to the Health Secretary for providing reservation for SC and ST in the Post Graduate courses, Since there was no response from the Health Secretary the Appellant filed a petition in the High Court.  The High Court dismissed the petition of the appellant therefore the appellant approached the Supreme Court by Special Leave Petition under Article 136. Appellant Contentions  MDU, Rohtak has provided 20% reservation for the graduate level courses or undergraduate courses therefore the said University should also provide reservation in for the PG courses.  The Government o
Post a Comment
Read more

Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, 2002

Image
Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, 2002||Case Summary Introduction   In Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, 2002 the Supreme Court reconsidered the decision of " Subhajit Tewary v. Union of India, 1975 in which the Court held that CSIR (Council of Scientific and Industrial Research) does not come under the definition of "State" as CSIR is not an authority within the meaning of Article 12 . Facts   In Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, 2002 the appellant approached the Supreme Court through Special Leave Petition under Article 136 to challenge the termination of his service by the Respondent 1 which is a unit of CSIR . As a result, the two-judge bench of the Supreme Court referred this case to a Constitution Bench being of the view that the case of  Subhajit Tewary, 1975 required to reconsideration in which Subhajit, a Junior Stenographer filed a writ under Article 32 to claim eq
Post a Comment
Read more

Som Prakash Rekhi v. Union of India (1981) 1 SCC 449

Image
Som Prakash Rekhi v. Union of India, 1981||Case Summary  Introduction In Som Prakash Rekhi v. Union of India, 1981 we will understand Article 12 of the Constitution of India which defines the term 'State' in a broad manner and will get to know it's better interpretation produced by the Apex Court. Facts  A company named "Burmah Shell Oil Storage Ltd." a government company has been taken over by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) another government company under the Burmah Shell Act, 1976. The petitioner who was a clerk in the Burmah Shell Company, retired at the age of 50 was entitled to a qualifying pension and was also covered by the scheme under the Employees Provident Fund and Family Pension Act, 1952 which has been deducted by the BPCL on certain grounds as a result the Petitioner moved the Supreme Court under Article 32 while stating that the deduction from his original Pension (Rs.165.99) to Rs. 40.05 is inhuman and illegal and violation
Post a Comment
Read more