Supreme Court: Uncrystallized Contractual Damages Not an Operational Debt under Section 9 IBC  ||  Supreme Court: Interest Accrued in Suspense Account After NPA Classification is Recoverable as Debt  ||  Supreme Court: S.69 GST Arrest Order with “Reasons to Believe” Must Precede Arrest  ||  Supreme Court: Winding-Up Proceedings Period Cannot be Excluded under Section 14 Limitation Act  ||  Supreme Court: Separate Appeals Unnecessary Against Common Judgment on Suit and Counterclaim  ||  Supreme Court: Unsuccessful Party Can Seek Post-Award Section 9 Relief in Exceptional Cases  ||  Delhi HC Rejects Black Money Act Challenge, Imposes Rs. 60,000 Costs over Prosecution Avoidance  ||  Delhi HC Affirms Teacher's POCSO Conviction, Urges Schools to Encourage Children to Speak Up  ||  Kerala HC: NGO Funding Peaceful Protests Can't Justify FCRA Renewal Denial  ||  Delhi HC: Courts Cannot Judge Sufficiency of Material For Issuing Look Out Circular    

SC: CJs of HCs Acting on Administrative Side Don’t Have Any Rule Making Authority of Executive - (04 Jan 2024)

ADMINISTRATIVE

Supreme Court while observing that policymaking needs consideration of many factors, has held that Chief Justices(CJs) of High Courts, acting on the administrative side don’t have the power to frame rules about post-retiral benefits for former judges that must mandatorily be notified by the State.

Tags : SUPREME COURT   FORMER JUDGES   POLICYMAKING   POST-RETIRAL BENEFITS  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved