Kerala High Court
The case was filed with respect to the exorbitant fees that were being levied by the private medical colleges in the state of Kerala. The Kerala High Court had ordered the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee that the audited sheets should be examined to see whether the management expenditure was excluded or not.
There were 5 writ petitions filed before the Kerala High Court with regard to Rule 56 of the Kerala Education Rules and Section 2 (IV) of the Legislative Assembly (Removal of Disqualifications) Act. These laws bestowed on the teachers of aided schools the power to contest in elections. These provisions were challenged on grounds of being violative of fundamental rights.
The Court expressed its indignation by stating that “Based on a false complaint, a person is in jail for about 77 days. This Court cannot shut its eye in such situations.”
Kerala HC Stays Government Order For Deferment Of Salaries Of State Government Employees: Says Salary Comes Within The Scope Of Article 300A
The Kerala HC held that government orders could not take away the vested right of a government employee to receive salary. The court ruled that salary could prima facie be considered as property and deferment of salaries would amount to a violation of Article 300A of the Constitution as the government order did not have sufficient legal backing.
The government will spend around Rs. 1000 Crore for the new parliament building, right in the center of India’s capital.
In the recent past, our government has come up with three different ordinances related to agriculture which has infuriated the farmers of our nation.
Sony Pictures Networks India Private Limited is looking to hire an Associate with 3-5 years of PQE from Media and Entertainment Industry, preferably with...
Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Hereinafter “Act”) lays down the basis for setting aside arbitral awards made in domestic and foreign arbitrations held in India. Though international awards cannot be contested in India, the compliance of such awards in India may be validly challenged by the award debtor on the grounds set out in Section 48 of the Act. The grounds set under both these sections are almost similar, one of the grounds being that the arbitral award is found contrary to the “public policy of India”. The question of the constituent elements of “public policy” have been discussed in a number of cases, however, in a recent case of Vijay Karia & Ors. V. Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi Srl & Ors, the SC drew attention to this point viz-a-viz foreign award.