Show the cases, Nominal/Party Name wise
Show the cases, Date of Decision wise
LATEST CASES
(for last one month)
Total No. of Cases: 23

2015 SCCL.COM 150(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 338 of 2015 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.1512 of 2015 (D.No. 5077 of 2015])
Teesta Atul Setalvad and another Appellant versus State of Gujarat Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 3/19/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel .
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 420, 406, 468, 120B and Information and Technology Act, 2000 — section 72(A) — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — section 438 — whether the appellants, the wife and husband, trustees of two trusts, namely, “Citizens for Justice and Peace” and “Sabrang Trust”, should be taken into custody for custodial interrogation on the bedrock of allegations made by one Ferozkhan Saeedkhan Pathan, alleging that the trustees along with others had raised few crores of rupees as donations from certain donors from India and abroad by projecting the plight of the affected persons of Gulbarga Society and by entering into a conspiracy, and has promised that they would build a “museum” in honour of the 2002 riot victims and also told them not to sell their land with the assurance that the trustees would arrange funds for the same, but they neither built the museum as promised nor spent the amount for the benefit of the members of the Gulbarga Society nor did they fulfil the assurance made to the victims as regards the sale of their properties but expended on themselves by benumbing and comatosing their liberty by asking them to face custodial interrogation or regard being had to the nature of the offences, for which a crime punishable under Sections 420, 406, 468, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 72(A) of the Information and Technology Act, 2000 has been registered should they be extended the benefit of anticipatory bail, as envisaged under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code that has been refused by the Court of Session as well as by the High Court — matter referred to larger Bench.

2015 SCCL.COM 148(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 1424 of 2009 with Criminal Appeal No. of 2015 Arising out of SLP(Crl) No. Crl.M.P.No. 7170 of 2007))
Sanjiv Kumar @ Gora Appellant versus State of Punjab Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 3/19/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra and Hon'ble Mr. JusticePrafulla C. Pant .
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 395, 450 and 342 — conviction under — no illegality — committed by the trial court in convicting the accused Sanjiv Kumar under Sections 395, 450 and 342 IPC, which is rightly affirmed, with modification of sentence, by the High Court — for the purpose of just and proper punishment, not only the accused must be made to realize that the crime was committed by him, but there should be proportionality between the offence committed and the penalty imposed. It is obligatory on the part of the Court to keep in mind the impact of the offence on the society, and its ramifications including the repercussion on the victim.

2015 SCCL.COM 147(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 471 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 5295 of 2014) with Criminal Appeal No. 472 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP(Crl) No. 5800 of 2014))
HMT Watches Ltd. Appellant versus M.A. Abida & another Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 3/19/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prafulla C. Pant .
Subject Index: Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — section 138 — complaints under — in the case of Pulsive Technologies P. Ltd. vs. State of Gujarat[(2014) 9 SCALE 437], this Court has already held that instruction of “stop payment” issued to the banker could be sufficient to make the accused liable for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Earlier also in Modi Cements Ltd. vs. Kuchil Kumar Nandi[(1998) 3 SCC 249], this Court has clarified that if a cheque is dishonoured because of stop payment instruction even then offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act gets attracted — the High Court has committed grave error of law in quashing the criminal complaints filed by the appellant in respect of offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by accepting factual defences of the accused which were disputed ones. Such defences, if taken before trial court, after recording of the evidence, can be better appreciated.

2015 SCCL.COM 151(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 461 of 2015 [Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.5746 of 2014])
M. Mahendar Kumar Appellant versus M. Mani & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 3/17/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifualla and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shiva Kirti Singh .
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — section 482 — the appellant is an accused in a complaint case bearing Crime No.147 of 2009 pending in the file of learned Judicial Magistrate at Gingee, Tamil Nadu. He is aggrieved by impugned order dated 10.01.2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in a petition under Section 482 — the impugned order further discloses that the learned Single Judge was not properly assisted in the matter and he could not notice that Crime No.147 of 2009 was no longer pending in the file of Dy.S.P. of Police or any other police authority because investigation had been completed and chargesheet was submitted long back. It was clearly on account of non application of mind to such relevant fact that the impugned order came to be passed at the initial stage of admission without noticing any counter affidavit or reply and/or its absence — Court sets aside the impugned order as it has been passed on account of suppression of material facts and under a wrong impression that Crime No.147 of 2009 was still pending before the police authorities at the investigation stage. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed.

2015 SCCL.COM 146(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 2935-36 of 2015 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.6513-6514 of 2015))
Jyoti Limited & others Appellants versus Bharat J. Patel & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 3/17/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal .
Subject Index: Suit — maintainability of — the maintainability of a suit is question of law. Though, by virtue of declaration under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, all suits of civil nature are maintainable unless barred either by an express provision or by implication of law. In the case on hand, when a specific stand is taken that in view of the provisions of Companies Act the suit is not maintainable, “the checkered history between the contesting parties and the chronology of the actions taken by the respondents” do not decide the maintainability of the suit. Court finds the conclusion recorded by the High Court to be highly unsatisfactory — on the question whether the plaintiffs have a prima facie case, the High Court recorded a cryptic conclusion without recording any reasons (at para 7.2) that they have a strong prima facie case. On the question of the balance of convenience also, the order of the High Court is very equivocal. But the High Court went on to issue certain directions — the directions in paras 7.2 and 7.3 are inconsistent with the directions in para 7.4. Apart from that, the fact that the orders of status quo were granted by the Chamber Judge during vacation, which have been continued from time to time without further consideration regarding the tenability of such orders, is no ground for continuing such orders — in the circumstances, Court deems it appropriate to set aside the impugned order. Having regard to the various contentions raised by the parties, it is better that the appeal before the High Court itself is disposed of on merits expeditiously.

2015 SCCL.COM 145(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 2938-2939 of 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.8972-8973 of 2014) and Civil Appeal Nos. 2940-2941 of 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.9016-9017 of 2014) with Civil Appeal No. 303 of 2004 with C.A. Nos._______ /2015 (@ S.L.P. (C) Nos. 8972-8973 of 2014) Civil Appeal No. 307 of 2004 )
Tata Steel Ltd. Appellant versus Union of India & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 3/17/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble the Chief Justice H.L. Dattu, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur and Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri .
Subject Index: Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act, 1957 — section 9 — excess royalty paid — entitlement to refund — whether TISCO is entitled to refund of the excess royalty paid from 10th August, 1998 (the date of the decision in SAIL) to 25th September, 2000 and if so whether the High Court was right in denying that refund — the question is whether TISCO is entitled to refund of royalty from 25th September, 2000 till June 2002 and if so, whether the High Court was right in denying that refund — held the decision rendered in SAIL is confined to its own facts and to the minerals dolomite and limestone. The decision does not deal with removal of a mineral from the leased area but deals with consumption within the leased area — the levy of royalty on coal has now been postponed from the pit-head to the stage of removal of the coal (whether unprocessed or ROM coal or whether beneficiated coal) — the constitutional validity or the vires of Rule 64B and Rule 64C of the Mineral Concession Rules has not been adjudicated upon. It is open to Tata Steel either to revive these appeals limited to this question or to challenge the constitutionality and vires of these rules through a separate challenge.

2015 SCCL.COM 149(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 5167 of 2008 with C.A. No.5168 of 2008 C.A. No.8962 of 2010 C.A. No.909 of 2011 Civil Appeal No. 2919 of 2015 [Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.3804 of 2011] Civil Appeal No. 2920 of 2015 [Arising out of SLP (Civil ) No.5381 of 2011] Civil Appeal No. 2921 of 2015 [ARISING out of SLP (Civil ) No.5383 of 2011] Civil Appeal No. 2922 of 2015 [Arising out of SLP (Civil ) No.5530 of 2011] Civil Appeal No. 2923 of 2015 [Arising out of SLP (Civil ) No.19945 of 2012] )
M/s. Queen's Educational Society Appellant versus Commissioner of Income Tax Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 3/16/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.F. Nariman .
Subject Index: Income Tax Act, 1961 — sections 10(23C) read with section 11 — the correct tests which have been culled out in the three Supreme Court judgments namely, Surat Art Silk Cloth, Aditanar and American Hotel and Lodging, would all apply to determine whether an educational institution exists solely for educational purposes and not for purposes of profit — the 13th proviso to Section 10(23C) is of great importance in that assessing authorities must continuously monitor from assessment year to assessment year whether such institutions continue to apply their income and invest or deposit their funds in accordance with the law laid down — the activities of such institutions be looked at carefully. If they are not genuine, or are not being carried out in accordance with all or any of the conditions subject to which approval has been given, such approval and exemption must forthwith be withdrawn — revenue is at liberty to pass fresh orders if such necessity is felt after taking into consideration the various provisions of law contained in Section 10(23C) read with Section 11 of the Income Tax Act.

2015 SCCL.COM 144(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 456 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP (CRL.) No. 6437 of 2013))
Taramani Parakh Appellant versus State of M.P. & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 3/16/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel .
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code, 1993 — section 482 — quashing of the proceedings — by submitting that the behaviour of the appellant was not cordial and in spite of efforts of the accused, she failed to improve her behaviour and her father took her with him on 22nd May, 2010. The husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act — the High Court in proceedings under Section 482 could not quash the proceedings merely with the observation that the allegations were omnibus — there are allegations against Respondent No.2 and his parents for harassing the complainant which forced her to leave the matrimonial home. Even now she continues to be separated from the matrimonial home as she apprehends lack of security and safety and proper environment in the matrimonial home. The question whether the appellant has infact been harassed and treated with cruelty is a matter of trial but at this stage, it cannot be said that no case is made out. Thus, quashing of proceedings before the trial is not permissible.

2015 SCCL.COM 143(Case No: Criminal Misc. Petition No. 17870 of 2014 in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 2838 of 2000)
Abdul Razzaq Appellant versus State of U.P. Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 3/16/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel .
Subject Index: Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 — section 7-A — application under — seeking release of the petitioner who has been found to be juvenile. Since special leave petition and review petition have been dismissed and Court is inclined to allow the application, orders dismissing the special leave petition and review petition will stand recalled — the petitioner was tried for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for causing the death of Amir Ullah on 18th February, 1979 at Firozabad — the Juvenile Justice Board, Agra vide Order dated 2nd July, 2013 examined the case of the petitioner and held that on the date of incident, the petitioner was less than 18 years of age — Since in the present case, the High Court has declined to entertain an application as per order dated 2 December, 2014 a copy of which has been produced, Court considers it appropriate to entertain this application.

2015 SCCL.COM 135(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 2814-2815 of 2015 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.33342-43 of 2014) with Civil Appeal Nos. 2816 of 2015 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.24871 of 2014))
Baranagore Jute Factory Plc. Appellant withYashdeep Trexim Private Ltd. Appellant versus Shreekishan Omprakash and another Respondent s
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 3/12/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amitava Roy .
Subject Index: Company case — money deposited with the Registrar General — application for making over the money — court is of the opinion that the Company Judge before whom all applications are pending should dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible within a period of two months from today.

2015 SCCL.COM 142(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 2238 of 2010 with Criminal Appeal No. 425 of 2015 (@ SLP(Crl.) NO. 9896 of 2011) Criminal Appeal No. 636 of 2012)
Md. Ali @ Guddu Appellant versus State of U.P. Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 3/10/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra and Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana .
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 363, 366 and 376 — conviction under by Additional Sessions Judge — on the basis of the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if it is unimpeachable and beyond reproach, a conviction can be based. In the case at hand, the learned trial Judge as well as the High Court have persuaded themselves away with this principle without appreciating the acceptability and reliability of the testimony of the witness. In fact, it would not be inappropriate to say that whatever the analysis in the impugned judgment, it would only indicate an impropriety of approach. The prosecutrix has deposed that she was taken from one place to the other and remained at various houses for almost two months — as the present case would show, her testimony does not inspire confidence, and the circumstantial evidence remotely do not lend any support to the same. In the absence of both, Court is compelled to hold that the learned trial Judge has erroneously convicted the accused-appellants for the alleged offences and the High Court has fallen into error, without reappreciating the material on record, by giving the stamp of approval to the same — the appeals are allowed, judgment of conviction and order of sentence are set aside.

2015 SCCL.COM 141(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 1569 of 2007 with Civil Appeal No. 3214 of 2011 with SLP(C) No. 10080 of 2014)
Premier Breweries Ltd., Karnataka Appellant versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Cochin Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 3/10/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prafulla C. Pant .
Subject Index: Incometax Act, 1961 — section 256() — exercise of jurisdiction under — the questions reframed by the High Court have been answered against the appellant assessee and in favour of the revenue. The question decided by the High Court and relevant to the present appeal relates to the entitlement of the assessee to the benefit of disallowance of commission purportedly paid by the assessee to its commission agents for procurement of order for supply of liquor — the exercise performed is one of the correct legal inferences that should be drawn on the facts already recorded by the learned Tribunal. The questions reframed were to the said effect. The legal inference that should be drawn from the primary facts, as consistently held by this Court, is eminently a question of law. No question of perversity was required to be framed or gone into to answer the issues arising — the questions relatable to perversity were consciously discarded by the High Court. Supreme Court therefore, cannot find any fault with the questions reframed by the High Court or the answers provided.

2015 SCCL.COM 140(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 787 and 788 of 2011)
D. Velayutham Appellant versus State Rep. by Inspector of Respondent Police, Salem Town, Chennai
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 3/10/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikramajit Sen .
Subject Index: Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) — appeals under —the High Court partly allowed both Appeals, setting aside the conviction of Accused 1 under Section 13(1) (d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, whilst upholding Accused 2’s conviction thereunder; and affirming the conviction of both Accused 1 and Accused 2 but reducing their sentence under Section 120B, IPC, and Section 7 of the PC Act, to imprisonment of one year each — the conviction of Accused 1 perfectly sustainable. It is an argument afortiori supportive of Accused 1’s conviction herein, since in Shamsudhin, A-2’s receipt in A-1’s office on behalf of A-1 could conceivably have been repudiated by A-1 on the ground that he himself could have taken receipt of the bribe amount in his own office, being physically present there at the time of payment, and need not have relied on his junior officer to take receipt thereof on his behalf — accused 1’s absence from the office at the time of the trap strengthens, rather than weakens, the claim that his junior officer, Accused 2, was receiving part of the bribe amount as a custodian on his behalf.

2015 SCCL.COM 139(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 65 of 2012)
Deepak Appellant versus State of Haryana Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 3/10/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre .
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 376 — conviction under — conviction upheld — once the offence under Section 376 IPC is proved then the minimum sentence is 7 years, which may extend to imprisonment for life and the fine. Therefore, the appellant should feel fortunate that he was awarded only 7 years’ sentence else it could have been even more — since the State has not filed any appeal for enhancement of sentence, Supreme Court need not go into this question except to reject the submissions urged by the learned counsel for the appellant being totally devoid of substance.

2015 SCCL.COM 138(Case No: Criminal Appeal Nos. 230 of 2013)
Satish Kumar Jayanti Lal Dabgar Appellant versus State of Gujarat Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 3/10/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra and Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri .
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 363, 366 and section 376 — conviction under — appeal — merely because the appellant has now married hardly becomes a mitigating circumstance. Likewise, the appellant cannot plead that prosecutrix is also married and having a child and, therefore, appellant should be leniently treated. It is not a case where the appellant has married the prosecutrix — the High Court has already reduced the sentence from seven years rigorous imprisonment to 4½ years under Section 376 of the IPC. Therefore, in any case, the appellant is not entitled to any further mercy.

2015 SCCL.COM 137(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 5099 of 2008 with Civil Appeal No. 5126 of 2008)
Bhargava & Associates Pvt. Ltd.& others Appellants versus Union of India and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 3/10/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikramajit Sen and Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Nagappan .
Subject Index: Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resetllement Act, 2013 — these Appeals were originally filed seeking relief on the basis of provisions in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Subsequently, upon the enactment of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the Appeal grounds herein metamorphosed into proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, seeking lapse of the acquisition proceedings thereunder — the submission of the land owners is that either possession is still with them, or compensation has not been tendered by the State. Consequently, the land owners propose to initiate proceedings founded on Section 24 — liberty to the land owners before the court to pray for the revival of the Appeals in the event that Orders under Section 24 of the 2013 Act are adverse to their interest — permit the land owners to initiate appropriate proceedings in the proper forum/court, seeking the benefit of Section 24 of the 2013 Act, within eight weeks from today.

2015 SCCL.COM 136(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 519 of 2010)
Gurjit Singh alias Gora and another Appellants versus State of Haryana Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 3/10/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.A. Bobde .
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 302 read with section 34 — acquittal by trial court — the inordinate delay in seeking medical attention raises many questions. In addition, he also refused to undergo radiological examination of the injuries and did not tell the doctor as to how and why he got the injuries. Gurdial Singh’s conduct appears to be wholly unnatural and it is not possible to accept the defence version that Gurjit Singh attacked Jagsir Singh (deceased) because Jagsir attacked his father with a ‘gandasi — the order of conviction and sentence as recorded by the High Court is upheld and the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court is set aside.  

2015 SCCL.COM 134(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 2749 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.3172 of 2014) with Civil Appeal No. 2750 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 16851 of 2014) Civil Appeal No. 2751 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 26518 of 2014) Civil Appeal No. 2752 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 27218 of 2014) Civil Appeal No. 2753 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 32231 of 2014) and Civil Appeal No. 2754 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 1135 of 2015))
The Revenue Divisional officer fort, Kochi & others Appellants versus Jalaja Dileep & another Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 3/10/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Gopala Gowda and Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi.
Subject Index: Kerala Land Tax Act — whether the order of conversion of land passed by the Tahsildar under Kerala Land Tax Act would circumvent the provisions of beneficial legislations such as Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wetland Act, 2008 and the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967? — the impugned judgment passed by the High Court in Writ Appeal No.412/2013 is set aside and the appeal is allowed — the respondents in all the appeals are directed to approach the competent authorities constituted under KLU Order 1967/Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act 2008 as the case may be for conversion of the land. When the respondents approach the concerned authorities constituted under the above statutes, the concerned authorities shall consider the application of the respondents in accordance with the relevant provisions of the statutes.

2015 SCCL.COM 133(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 610 of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C) NO. 36643 OF 2014])
Harmony Innovation Shipping Ltd. Appellant versus Gupta Coal India Ltd. & another Respondents  
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 3/10/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prafulla C. Pant .
Subject Index: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — section 9 — attaching of the cargo — whether in the obtaining factual matrix, especially regard being had to the nature of the arbitration clause, the High Court is justified in setting aside the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ernakulam on 25.9.2014 in I.A. No. 4345 of 2014 in O.P. (ARB) No. 802/2014 directing the first respondent therein to furnish security for US$ 11,15,400 or its equivalent (approximate) Indian Rupees 6,60,00,000/- or to show cause on or before 01.10.2014, and as an interim measure conditionally attaching the cargo belonging to the first respondent herein, while dealing with an application moved under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — it would be appropriate to interpret the clause that it is a proper clause or substantial clause and not a curial or a procedural one by which the arbitration proceedings are to be conducted and hence, Court is disposed to think that the seat of arbitration will be at London — the implied exclusion principle stated in Bhatia International would be applicable, regard being had to the clause in the agreement, there is no need to dwell upon the contention raised pertaining to the addendum, for any interpretation placed on the said document would not make any difference to the ultimate conclusion — the Division Bench of the High Court has allowed the petition on the foundation that the Bharat Aluminium Co. case would govern the field and, therefore, the court below had no jurisdiction is not correct — even applying the principles laid down in Bhatia International and scanning the anatomy of the arbitration clause, Court has arrived at the conclusion that the courts in India will not have jurisdiction as there is implied exclusion.

2015 SCCL.COM 121(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 393 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4213 of 2013))
State of Himachal Pradesh Appellant versus Ram Pal Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/27/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel .
Subject Index: Sentence — whether the sentence imposed in the facts and circumstances is fair and just — the death was because of vehicle hitting the girl which in the circumstances was clear result of rash and negligent act of driving. Accordingly, the appellate Court convicted the respondent under Section 279 and 304 A IPC and awarded sentence of imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.1000, in default further imprisonment of one month under Section 304 A IPC and concurrent imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs.500, in default further imprisonment of fifteen days under Section 279 IPC — it is evident from the facts and circumstances of the case that the respondent has not called in question his conviction — only challenge to the inadequacy of the sentence in the present appeal filed by the State — ends of justice will be served if the accused is required to pay total compensation of Rs.1 lakh and the State to pay a sum of Rs.3 lakhs — in case the respondent fails to pay any part of the compensation, that part of compensation will also be paid by the State so that the heirs of the victim get total sum of Rs. 4 lakhs towards compensation.

2015 SCCL.COM 120(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 2475-2476 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.22705-22706 of 2013))
M/s. Sherali Khan Mohamed Manekia Appellant(s) versus The State of Maharashtra and others Respondent(s)  
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/27/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph .
Subject Index: Suit Property — evacuee property — appointment of Receiver — was purchased by the appellant in an auction sale as far back as on 15.6.1964. In the year 1980, the appellant filed a suit being Civil Suit No. 37 of 1980 before the District Judge, Thane Court seeking specific performance of the sale of the property and possession and interim relief of injunction restraining the defendants therein from carrying on further construction on the suit property. The appellant further made a prayer for appointment of Receiver — the High Court while making appointment of the Receiver directed to take possession of the suit property. All the persons who were in actual possession of any part of the suit property were continued to remain in possession. The Receiver was directed to collect rent and compensation as the case may be from all the persons in actual possession after verifying from them their present right to remain in possession. The High Court further directed that the Receiver should take suitable direction from the court if he was presented with any particular difficulty — when a Receiver is appointed pending suit or appeal, the prime objective is to preserve the property by taking possession or otherwise and to keep an account of rent and profits that may be realized by the Receiver and to submit it before the court till the lis is finally decided — the function of receivers who are appointed comes to an end with the final decision of the case — the Executing Court while executing the decree may take assistance of the Receiver or by appointing new Receiver or Commissioner for effecting delivery of possession in accordance with law and not more than that.

2015 SCCL.COM 118(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 2538-40 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 2487-2489 of 2015))
Mohd. Akbar Appellant versus Ashok Sahu & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/27/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman.
Subject Index: Election dispute — invariably the resolution of election disputes in this country takes unacceptably long periods in most of the cases. Very rarely an election dispute gets resolved during the tenure of the declared candidate reducing the adjudicatory process into a mockery of justice. Such delay coupled with a right of appeal to this Court makes the whole process of adjudication a task in a good number of cases — court deems it desirable that in each High Court dedicated Benches are created by the Chief Justice to deal with the election petitions exclusively — those judges assigned with the adjudication of election petitions preferably may not be burdened with any other work until the adjudication of the election petitions is completed. An exercise which may not be difficult especially the class of litigation occurs only once in 5 or 6 years and the number of cases would be very limited — it is not possible for laying down any absolute rules in this regard. Essentially it is for a Chief Justice of the High Court to run the administration and devise ways and means for expeditiously disposing of the cases brought before the High Court — Supreme Court only gently reminds that the kind of delay in the adjudication of election disputes exposes the High Court’s unpleasant criticism damaging the credibility of the institution — Some 15 months after the election, the trial of the election petition has not yet commenced. In the circumstances, Court deems it appropriate to request the Chief Justice to take necessary steps for disposal of the Election Petition No. 4 of 2014 expeditiously, by devising such appropriate measures as the Hon’ble Chief Justice may deem fit and proper in the circumstances.

2015 SCCL.COM 117(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 4245 of 2012)
Shyam Lal Appellant versus Deepa Dass Chela Ram Chela Garib Dass Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/27/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shiva Kirti Singh .
Subject Index: Agricultural tenancy — the trial court, the appellate court and the High Court have committed error of law in holding that a tenant of agricultural holding becomes a trespasser after the expiry of period of tenancy — the High Court and the lower courts have failed to consider that the agricultural tenancy are governed by the State Tenancy Laws which are special Acts for the purpose of regulating the tenancy and protecting the tenants from eviction without following the procedure provided in those State Laws. The procedure for eviction of tenant in occupation of building by approaching the civil court under Rent Control Act will not be applicable for evicting the tenants holding agricultural land — it is the Revenue Court specially empowered to take action for eviction of tenant in the manner provided under the Act notwithstanding any contract on the basis of which the tenant occupied possession of the agricultural land for the purpose of cultivation — in Sukhdev Singh’s case a Bench of this Court on consideration of the provisions of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 was of the opinion that after the expiry of fixed term tenancy in respect of agricultural land, the tenancy gets terminated by efflux of time and person occupying the lease premises no longer remains tenant. With due respect, Court is not in agreement with the view taken by this Court in Sukhdev Singh’s case — to maintain judicial discipline, the matter needs to be referred to a larger Bench for laying down a correct law — direct the Registry to place the record before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for placing the matter before a larger Bench.

go top | go back

Home | Membership form | Journals & Books | Services | About Us | Register with us | Supreme Court Caselaw |Consumer Caselaw | Latest Cases | Food Laws | Drug Laws | Labour Laws | Consumer Laws | Municipal Laws | Law Links | Suggestions/Complaints
For any query or help, mail us