Result of U.P. Higher Judicial Service (Main Written) Examination, 2014 Direct Recruitment to U.P. Higher Judicial Service held on 14th, 15th and 16th November, 2014 has been declared. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur notified Advertisement for recruitment additional district judges through M.P. Higher Judicial Service (Entry Level) Direct Recruitment for BAR, Exam 2015 Haryana Judicial Services Examination 2014-Pre is conducted on 10th of Jan 2015. The result is awaited. THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI will hold examination for direct recruitment against 14 vacancies to Delhi Higher Judicial Service on Sunday, the 06th April,2014-Last Date 06.02.2014 13/11/2013: While renewing the term of the appointment of the existing incumbents the State Government is required to consider their past performance and conduct in the light of the recommendations made by the District Judges and the District Magistrates. Therefore, the High Court could not have issued a Mandamus for renewal of the term of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and other similarly situated persons and thereby frustrated the provisions of LR Manual and Section 24 Cr.P.C .- SUPREME COURT.
Go Back to High Court Judgements
  Date 4/18/2009 11:02:00 AM
  Appeal -
  Act -
  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA:CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7972 OF 2002,NEW INDIA ASSURANCE LTD. vs. M/S. ABHILASH JEWELLERY Held: ... the respondant took a Jeweller Block Policy for Rs. 1,15,00,000/-. and lodged a claim with the appellant for the loss of gold ornament weighing 587.870 grams. The claim was repudiated by the appellant on the ground that the loss of gold was occasioned as it was in the custody of an apprentice, who was not an employee. The relevant clause in the Insurance Policy stated: S. 11a property insured whilst in the custody of the insured, his partner or his employees. The question, therefore, is whether an apprentice is an employee. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held that an apprentice is an employee because Section 2- of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act defines an employee to include an apprentice. The National Commission has also relied on the definition in the Employees State Insurance Act and some other enactments. We are of the opinion that the view taken by the Natinal Commssion is not correct. The present case is covered solely by the contract of insurance. That contract of insurance no doubt uses the word employee, but it does not say that the word employee in the contract of insurance will have the same meaning as in the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act or the Employees State Insurance Act or any other enactment. In various enactments, the word employee, has no doubt, been defined to include an apprentice, but that is only a deeming provision and a legal fiction by which the meaning of the word employee has been extended..... In the present case, since the word employee has not been defined in the contract of insurance, we have to give it the meaning which it has in common parlance. In common parlance, an apprentice is a trainee and not an employee. Even if he is given a stipend, that does not mean that there is a relationship of master and servant between the firm and the apprentice. Hence, we cannot agree with the view taken by the National Commission. In our view , the claim before the National Commission was not maintainable. Hence we set aside the order of the National Commission. The appeal is allowed. No orders as to costs. MARKANDEY KATJU,J. .... R.M. LODHA,J. New Delhi, January 22, 2009.