Legal Update as on 18.01.2023

legal-updates
Legal Update
  1. DELHI HC – THE POSSIBILITY OF MORE MONEY CANNOT BE THE ONLY CRITERIA FOR CANCELLING A CONTRACT – While granting petitions challenging NHAI’s decision to solicit new bids for the collection of user fees at two toll plazas, the Delhi High Court ruled that the possibility of receiving more money from a public contract could not be the only ground for terminating a contract, particularly if it was for a fixed period of time.
    M/S JAI SINGH AND CO versus NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA
  1. NO BENEFIT OF LAPSE IS AVAILABLE IF THE DELAY IN POSSESSION IS CAUSED BY AN ONGOING LAWSUIT, ACCORDING TO SC – The Supreme Court ruled that the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act of 2013’s Section 24(2) does not grant the original owner of the land the benefit of lapse if taking possession of the land is delayed due to litigation that is still pending.
    GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI VERSUS SUNIL JAIN & ORS CIVIL APPEAL NO.280 OF 2023
  1. SC DISMISSED PLEA TO BRING CHIEF MINISTER UNDER PURVIEW OF UP LOKAYUKTA ACT – The Supreme Court has rejected a PIL that sought to bring the office of Chief Minister under the scope of the Lokayukta Act of the State of Uttar Pradesh.
    SHIV KUMAR TRIPATHI V. STATE OF UP WP(C) NO. 110/2019
  1. SC – IT IS VALID FOR THERE TO BE A DIFFERENCE IN PAY SCALE BASED ON EDUCATION – The Supreme Court has ruled that academic credentials are a legitimate factor in determining pay scales for different employees, even when the nature of the work they perform is largely the same.
    THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS. VERSUS RAJIB KHAN & ORS. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 172 OF 2023
  1. REFUND/ADJUST 15% FEES PAID DURING COVID-19 PANDEMIC TO ALL. HC TO SCHOOLS IN UP – When the COVID-19 outbreak led schools in Uttar Pradesh to close, the Allahabad High Court ordered that 15% of the additional fees charged during that academic session be refunded or applied to fees to be paid in the future.
    ADARSH BHUSHAN V. STATE OF UP
  1. SC: DEFAULT BAIL MAY BE TERMINATED FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE CHARGESHEET – The Supreme Court has ruled that default bail given to an accused under proviso to Section 167(2) CrPC can be revoked if special reasons are made out from the chargesheet and the chargesheet indicates commission of a non-bailable offence.
    STATE THROUGH CBI V. T. GANGI REDDY @ YERRA GNAGI REDDY

Legal Disclaimer: The information contained in this blog post is for general information and educational purposes only. Nothing contained in this blog post should be construed as legal advice from The Aran Law Firm or the individual author, nor is it intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter.

Tags :

Share This:

Legal Updates