Nagpur bench of Bombay High court struck down the certain provisions of new consumer protection rule on 14-09-2021. But on the basis of directions given by apex court on 11-08-2021 some appointment made on the vacancies in state consumer commission and some are at advance stage. The issue before the apex court is regarding these appointments which were already made. The apex court held that the appointments which were already made should not be denied and new appointments should not be made on the direction given on 11-08-2021.
Supreme Court observed section 69 of insolvency and bankruptcy code and says that the period of limitation for appeal against order begins on the day of pronouncement of order. It does not begin on the day the order uploaded on court site. If the party who want to file an appeal fail to apply for certified copy of order cannot plea before the court for extending the limitation period.
In Rupesh and others vs State of Uttar Pradesh, 2021, the bench comprised of Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice J K Maheshwari held that the even after the conviction the defence of juvenility can be raised before the court.
If there is sufficient evidence to corroborate the testimony of witness than the witness identified the accused in court cannot be denied on the basis that the test identification is not conducted.
Student selected for Indian administrative service doesn’t have right to choose their cadre or their state in which they wanted to be employed.
The apex court highlighted the fact the nomenclature used for certain tax doesn’t describe its nature or character. Like the water tax doesn’t not mean a tax on water consumption but on its on the supply of the water by authority to any land or building.
For filing an appeal against an order the application for certified copy of an order should be made before the expiry of the limitation period. Party who doesn’t made the application within the limitation period it cannot request of exclusion of time need in preparation of such certified copy.
