State Bank of India v. Ravindra Nath, 2019 (3) Scale 350 : (2019) 5 SCC 612

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA | Uday Umesh Lalit & Hemant Gupta, JJ. State Bank of India v. Ravindra Nath, C.A. No. 12367 of 2017 12-02-2019

Service Law - Reduction of Salary - Banking Service - Salary as well as perquisites are subject to change from time to time. Therefore, mere fact that the salary was changed subsequently, it will not confer any legally enforceable right in favour of the employee to challenge the same on the ground that the same is arbitrary or unjust.

Service Law - Reduction of Salary - Banking Service - Since, the salary has been fixed for all Officers of the Public Sector Banks in a non-discriminatory manner keeping in view the Cost of Living Index, the High Court erred in law in setting aside the reduction in salary.

For Appellant(s) Mr. Sanjay Kapur, AOR Ms. Megha Karnwal, Adv. Mr. Bharath Gangadharan, Adv. Mr. Kauser Husain, Adv. Ms. Shubhra Kapur, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. S. C. Birla, AOR

2019 (3) Scale 350 : (2019) 5 SCC 612

Comments

Presumptions are the Bats of the Law, Flitting in the Twilight, but Disappearing in the Sunshine of Actual Facts [ORDER]

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - failure on the part of the complainant to produce his account statement and absence of entry in accounts maintained by him regarding loan advanced to the accused, does show that there was no material to support the basic facts on which the entire case of the complainant was based. Sufficient material was available on record whereby the defence of the accused became probable. In such a situation, the presumption under the provisions of the Act ceased to operate and the burden fell upon the complainant to prove his case, which he failed to do by placing on record cogent evidence.

Adverse Possession | Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur, C.A. No. 7764 of 2014 07-08-2019 SC

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA | Arun Mishra , S. Abdul Nazeer & M.R. Shah C.A. No.7764 of 2014 with S.L.P. (C) Nos. 8332 - 8333 of 2014 Radhakrishna Reddy (d) Through Lrs. v. G. Ayyavoo & Ors. August 07, 2019 Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 65 - Adverse Possession - Plea of acquisition of title by adverse possession can be taken by plaintiff under Article 65 of the Limitation Act and there is no bar under the Limitation Act, 1963 to sue on aforesaid basis in case of infringement of any rights of a plaintiff. A person in possession cannot be ousted by another person except by due procedure of law and once 12 years' period of adverse possession is over, even owner's right to eject him is lost and the possessory owner acquires right, title and interest possessed by the outgoing person/owner as the case may be against whom he has prescribed. In our opinion, consequence is that once the right, title or interest is acquired it can be used as a sword by the plaintiff as well...

Anticipatory Bail in Attempt to Murder Cases (Section 307 IPC) : What is Important to Note [Case Law]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 438 - Grant of Anticipatory Bail - While considering the application under Section 438, the Court has to see the nature and gravity of the accusation and the antecedents of the applicant which includes whether he has been previously undergone imprisonment on conviction in respect of any cognizable offence, the possibility of the applicant fleeing from justice and whether the accusation has been made with an object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so arrested. [Para 12]

FIRST LAW

Search This Blog