Latest laws Helping good people to do good things.

Bench comprising of Justice Vipin Sanghi & Justice A K Chawla said once the schedule for filling the online application form and last date had been declared as Dec 22, the same could not have been brought to Dec 12 by the high court authorities.

The court’s order came while hearing two petitions filed by 12 aspirants.

The bench said, “With a view to obviate any further litigation on account of the change of schedule, we are of the considered view that the last date for filling of online application forms should be extended to Dec 24 (11 pm) so that all such aspirants, who may not have been able to apply online after December 12, are able to do so.”

Advocate Siddhartha Shankar Ray, who represented the aspirants in one of the petitions, said the preponed date did no come to their knowledge because they were busy preparing for the post of lower judicial officers of other states like Rajasthan, Jharkhand, Uttarakhand & Haryana.

The petitioners challenged advancing of the original deadline of Dec 22 to fill in the application form and make the due payment, to Dec 12.

Advocate Viraj R Datar, representing the Delhi High Court, said the reason for pre-ponement of the schedule for submitting the online application forms and for holding of the examination has been done since the matter is pending before the Supreme Court which has expressed that the vacancies be filled at the earliest.

Following the court’s order, a notice was uploaded on the high court website by the registrar general stating that the online portal for filling up applications will be made live till Dec 24, 11 pm.

The Delhi High Court had recently invited online applications for the Delhi Judicial Service Examination 2018.

As per the Nov 13 notification, the last date for filing online applications for the Examination was Dec 22.

Subsequently, the date was preponed to Dec 12 through a notification of Nov 19. The date of conducting the Preliminary Examination was also preponed to Jan 13 from Feb 10, 2019.

The pre-ponement of examination date was, however, not challenged.

Source Link

Facebook Comments

TOI

Hindu

Demonitisation Diaries by sify

...as an eminent lawyer you ought to know that your action tantamount to, under Section B, sub-section G.VIX, read along with I.P.C. (A) XI (B), notwithstanding... TOI

Four Pillars of Democracy by Satish

Delivery Boy by Satish

Auto Driver thrashed for no fault, source oneindia

TOI

Hindu Hindu

State of Two Nations pic by sandeep

Time to straighten up pic by TOI

Acheche Din pic by sify

[caption id="attachment_97462" align="alignleft" width="524"]

Painting India Saffron[/caption]

Hindu Hindu

Belts are for Dogs

Demonitisation Diaries 1 pic by sify

Women Safety: State of Affairs pic by mangal

Hindu

Demonitisation Diaries 2 pic by sify

Hindu

If India takes One Step, we will take Two ...................by Satish

Alligator vs Litigator [caption id="attachment_97477" align="alignleft" width="621"]

UIDAI Leaks[/caption]

Missing the Point pic by english blog 150425_-_farmers_a_2384764f

Hindu

TOI

TOI

Hindu

TOI

Humour @ Latest Laws: Achhey Din Hindu

Hindu

Soaring of Oil Prices pic by indiaone Hindu

Hindu

TOI

IBN IBN

State of Judiciary by Sandeep Adhwaryu of TOI

[caption id="attachment_97467" align="alignleft" width="621"]

Humour with Latest Laws[/caption] [caption id="attachment_97474" align="alignleft" width="621"]

Donald Trump’s immigration ban[/caption] Hindu

Hindu

Pic by Hindu

Women Empowerment and Sports

TOI

Let Justice Be

Job Hazards

Tax Reforms by Hindu

Lawyers Bearing the Burden Literally pic by OMG

Tags Delhi High Court Delhi Judicial Service Haryana Jharkhand Rajasthan Uttarakhand

Check Also

Security of five Kashmir separatist leaders withdrawn over Pulwama attacks, they say ‘we don’t need it’

February 17, 2019: They said that it was the government that insisted on keeping the personnel based on what they said was their assessment of threat perception. The Jammu & Kashmir administration has withdrawn the security of five separatist leaders ...

KRIPAL SINGH Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Indian Penal Code, Section 302 IPC. SC holds, prosecution has proved the case against the present accused/appellant beyond reasonable doubt that the injury on the head of the deceased which was attributed to the accused appellant could in itself be sufficient to cause death and this is what has been considered by the learned trial Court and confirmed by the High Court in appeal. The possibility of over-implication of co-accused Ram Lal, Arjun Singh and Sultan Singh would not in any manner rule out the case of the present appellant and the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt holding him guilty. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to how much evidence should be appreciated but what is required is that judicial approach has to be cautious in dealing with such evidence; but the plea that such evidence should be rejected because it is partisan cannot be accepted as correct. Appeal is dismissed.

A.M. Khanwilkar, Ajay Rastogi, JJ

15/2/2019 View judgement PDF

EZAJHUSSAIN SABDARHUSSAIN & ANR. Vs STATE OF GUJARAT

Indian Penal Code, Section 302. SC observed, there cannot be a universal rule in laying down the principles of existence of common intention of prior meeting or meetings with pre-arranged plan. It has to be proved either from the conduct or circumstances of any incriminating facts which is missing in the instant case. The High Court has committed a manifest error in holding the appellants guilty under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for participating in the commission of crime. The appellants deserve to be acquitted of the charges filed against them by giving them benefit of doubt. Appeal is allowed.

A.M. Khanwilkar, Ajay Rastogi, JJ

15/2/2019 View judgement PDF

ANJALI BHARDWAJ AND OTHERS Vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Right to Information Act, 2005. The petitioners through this PIL desires transparency and full disclosure of information depicting : (a) definite criteria for such appointments, (b) and such criteria should be made public in advance. SC observes, the petitioners are right in their submissions that there have been undue delays in filling up of these vacancies. We expect that the vacancies shall be filled up, in future, well in time. Supreme Court lays down directions keeping in view the salient purpose for which RTI Act. The Court observes, RTI Act is enacted not only to sub-serve and ensure freedom of speech. On proper implementation, it has the potential to bring about good governance which is an integral part of any vibrant democracy. Attaining good governance is also one of the visions of the Constitution. Appeal is disposed off.

AK Sikri, S Abdul Nazeer, JJ

15/2/2019 View judgement PDF

THE STATE OF GUJARAT Vs PWD AND FOREST EMPLOYEES UNION & ORS.

Gujarat Civil Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2009. SC observes, the respondent workers who have been working on daily wage basis cannot be given casual leave which is more than the entitlement extended to regular Government employees. We accept the plea of the appellant that Government Resolution dated October 17, 1988 which provides for 14 days casual leave including 2 days of voluntary/ optional leave is the result of inadvertent transaction error. The casual leave for daily wagers cannot be more than the regular Government employees. We, therefore, hold that the respondents employees shall be entitled to 12 days of casual leave and 2 days of voluntary leave/restricted leave. Appeal is allowed.

A.K. Sikri, S. Abdul Nazeer, M.R. Shah, JJ

15/2/2019 View judgement PDF

MEHBOOB-UR-REHMAN Vs AHSANUL GHANI

Civil Procedure Code, Section 100. SC observes, the plaintiff-appellant has failed to aver and prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. The Trial Court made a rather assumptive observation that he had proved such readiness and willingness. Thereafter, the plaintiff sought leave to amend the plaint only when the ground to that effect was taken in the first appeal by the defendant. SC states, the late attempt to improve upon the pleadings of the plaint at the appellate stage was only an exercise in futility in the present case. The High Court has rightly pointed out that no substantial question of law as regards the correctness of the order refusing the application for amendment was formulated. Appeal is dismissed.

Abhay Manohar Sapre, Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ

15/2/2019 View judgement PDF

PROF R K VIJAYASARATHY & ANR Vs SUDHA SEETHARAM & ANR

Indian Penal Code, Sections 405, 406, 415 and 420 read with Section 34. In the present case, the son of the appellants has instituted a civil suit for the recovery of money against the first respondent. The suit is pending. The first respondent has filed the complaint against the appellants six years after the date of the alleged transaction and nearly three years from the filing of the suit. SC holds, the averments in the complaint, read on its face, do not disclose the ingredients necessary to constitute offences under the Penal Code. An attempt has been made by the first respondent to cloak a civil dispute with a criminal nature despite the absence of the ingredients necessary to constitute a criminal offence. The complaint filed by the first respondent against the appellants constitutes an abuse of process of court and is liable to be quashed. The judgment of the High Court is set aside and the criminal proceedings instituted by the first respondent against the appellants are quashed. No opinion has been expressed on the merits of the pending civil suit filed by the son of the appellants for the recovery of money. Appeal is allowed.

Dr D.Y. Chandrachud, Hemant Gupta, JJ

15/2/2019 View judgement PDF

ESSAR SHIPPING LTD. Vs THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE PORT OF CALCUTTA

The issue is the alleged negligence of a licensed pilot. SC has found that it was combination of all factors as concluded by the Committee and the matter could not be put at the level of negligence on part of any individual simplicitor. SC observes, it cannot be concluded that the acts of commission or omission on part of the Master of the vessel alone, were responsible for and resulted in causing the damage to the coal loader. He may be held responsible to a certain extent for his non-intimation, but the failure on part of the Berthing Master in doing what was expected of him and other factors were also responsible. The conclusion arrived at by the Committee in the circumstances, which weighed with the Single Judge, is the correct perspective from which the matter is required to be considered. Therefore, the view taken by the trial court was, just and correct and that of the Division Bench was erroneous. Appeal is allowed.

Abhay Manohar Sapre, Uday Umesh Lalit, JJ

15/2/2019 View judgement PDF

PERRY KANSAGRA Vs SMRITI MADAN KANSAGRA

Family Courts Act, Family Court Rules, Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Rules, 2004, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. SC observes, in custody and guardianship disputes between two parties, a minor child is in a peculiar situation. At times, both sides are busy fighting legal battles and the court is called upon in parens patriae to decide what is in the best interest of the child. SC holds, if the reports of the Counsellor touching upon the home environment of the parties concerned, their personalities and their relationship with their child or children would assist the court in determining the custody or guardianship issues, any technicality ought not to stand in the way. Sub-Rule (viii) of Rule 8 seeks to achieve that purpose and makes such material available for the assessment of the court. Statements made by the parents during the course of mediation may not be relied upon on the ground of confidentiality but natural responses and statements made by the minor to the Counsellor would certainly afford a chance to decide what is in the best interest of the child. Appeal is allowed.

Abhay Manohar Sapre, Uday Umesh Lalit, JJ

15/2/2019 View judgement PDF

GIRIRAJ GARG Vs COAL INDIA LTD. & ORS.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 11. In this case, the Court expanded the application of the \'Doctrine of Incorporation\' by holding that even a general reference to a standard form contract of one party, along with those of trade associations, and professional bodies would be sufficient to incorporate the arbitration clause. SC observes, the High Court in the impugned order has erroneously taken the view that an arbitration clause would not stand incorporated in the individual sale order entered into by the Respondent and the Appellant. The individual sale orders emanate out of the 2007 Scheme. The sale orders specifically state that they would be governed by the guidelines, circulars, office orders, notices, instructions, relevant law etc. issued from time to time by Coal India Limited or Bharat Coking Coal Limited etc. As a consequence, the arbitration clause in the 2007 Scheme would stand incorporated in the sale orders issued thereunder. Appeal is allowed.

Uday Umesh Lalit, Indu Malhotra, JJ

15/2/2019 View judgement PDF

SRINIVASAN IYENGER AND ANR. Vs BIMLA DEVI AGARWAL & ORS.

Constitution of India, Article 142. SC observes, the parties have settled the dispute amicably and that the dispute between the parties seems to be having predominant element of a civil dispute and the origin is predominantly or overwhelming a civil dispute, it is a fit case to exercise the power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to meet the ends of justice. SC allows the parties to compound the offences, even though the offences alleged are non-compoundable, and that the dispute is a private one and between the two private parties. Accordingly, it is ordered that on payment of a sum of Rs.10,00,000 by the Appellants to the original Complainant to be deposited in the bank account of the original Complainant within a period of two weeks, the criminal proceedings stands quashed. Appeal disposed off.

L. Nageswara Rao, M. R Shah, JJ

15/2/2019 View judgement PDF

Latest CaseLaw

Delhi Judicial Service Exam: HC extends deadline to apply for it till Dec 24

On Monday, the Delhi High Court has extended the deadline to apply for the Delhi Judicial Service Examination 2018 till Dec 24 night.

You May Also Like

Check Also

Leave a Reply Cancel reply