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

2014 SCCL.COM 407(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 1808 of 2014 With Criminal Appeal No. 1807 of 2014)
Pulsive Technologies P. Ltd. Appellant versus State of Gujarat and others         Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/22/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Smt. Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai and Hon'ble Justice Mr. N. V. Ramana.
Subject Index: Negotiable Instruments Act — Sections 138 and 142 — criminal complaint filed under by the appellant pending on the file of CJM for offences under — quashed by the Gujarat High Court — appeals — the High Court has relied on M.M.T.C. Ltd. and Modi Cements and yet drawn a wrong conclusion that inasmuch as cheque was dishonoured because of “stop payment” instructions, offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act is not made out. The High Court observed that “stop payment” instructions were given because the complainant had failed to discharge its obligations as per agreement by not repairing/replacing the damaged UPS system — whether complainant had failed to discharge its obligations or not could not have been decided by the High Court conclusively at this stage. The High Court was dealing with a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code for quashing the complaint. On factual issue, as to whether the complainant had discharged its obligations or not, the High Court could not have given its final verdict at this stage. It is matter of evidence. This is exactly what this Court said in M.M.T.C. Ltd. Though the High Court referred to M.M.T.C. Ltd., it failed to note the most vital caution sounded therein — the High Court also erred in quashing the complaint on the ground that the contents of the reply sent by the accused were not disclosed in the complaint. Whether any money is paid by the accused to the complainant is a matter of evidence. The accused has ample opportunity to probabilis his defence. On that count, in the facts of this case, complaint cannot be quashed.

2014 SCCL.COM 408(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 5198 of 2008)
Singh Ram (D) Thr. L.Rs. Appellant versus Sheo Ram and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/21/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur, Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Nagappan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel.
Subject Index: Limitation Act, 1963 — Article 61 of the Schedule appended to the Act — application of — by the impugned judgment, the Full Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, considered the question "whether there is any time limit for usufructuary mortgagor to seek redemption?” and decided the said question in the negative — in cases where distinction in usufructuary mortgagor’s right under Section 62 of the T.P. Act has been noted, right to redeem has been held to continue till the mortgage money is paid for which there is no time limit while in other cases right to redeem has been held to accrue on the date of mortgage resulting in extinguishment of right of redemption after 30 years — special right of usufructuary mortgagor under Section 62 of the T.P. Act to recover possession commences in the manner specified therein, i.e., when mortgage money is paid out of rents and profits or partly out of rents and profits and partly by payment or deposit by mortgagor. Until then, limitation does not start for purposes of Article 61 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act. A usufructuary mortgagee is not entitled to file a suit for declaration that he had become an owner merely on the expiry of 30 years from the date of the mortgage.

2014 SCCL.COM 417(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 1771 of 2014)
Shivgiri Associates and others Appellants versus Metso Mineral (India) Pvt. Ltd Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/20/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikramajit Sen.
Subject Index: Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 13 — this Appeal assails the Order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana holding that since the notice as contemplated in Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 had been dispatched from Gurgaon, Haryana and additionally, a response thereto was dispatched to and received at Gurgaon, Courts at Gurgaon possessed jurisdiction to entertain and decide the Complaint. In the impugned Judgment, several precedents have been mentioned and decisions of this Court, namely, K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan (1999) 7 SCC 510 and Harman Electronics Private Limited v. National Panasonic India Private Limited (2009) 1 SCC 720 have been analysed and discussed — as Courts at Gurgaon do not possess territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act solely because, on the instructions of the Respondent, a legal notice of demand has emanated from that city. The Complaint be returned to the Complainant/Respondent for refiling in the appropriate Court at Bangalore, Karnataka. As mentioned in Dashrath Rupsingh, if the Complaint is re-filed in the appropriate Court in Bangalore within 30 days, it shall be deemed to have been filed within limitation. The interim orders stand recalled, accordingly.

2014 SCCL.COM 412(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 7839-7840 of 2014)
Akalakunnam Village Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. and another Appellants versus Binu N. and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/20/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal.
Subject Index: Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules and circulars issued under Rule 18(2) — no force — in the contention of the appellants regarding availability of alternate remedy by way of filing an Arbitration case under section 69 of the Act since in Courts opinion dispute between the writ petitioners and the Bank does not come within the provisions of this Section — the Bank has failed to conduct written examination and interview as per the then existing guidelines issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Indisputably, the respondent writ petitioners moved the High Court challenging the circulars immediately after the notification and prior to the conduct of examination — Supreme Court concurs with the decision of the High Court and do not find any merit whatsoever, in both the appeals, which are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

2014 SCCL.COM 416(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 6275 of 2014)
North Eastern Railway and others Appellants versus Tripple Engineering Works Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/13/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal.
Subject Index: Arbitration — the challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 27.06.2012 of the Patna High Court by which a former Chief Justice of the Sikkim High Court had been appointed as the arbitrator to resolve the disputes and differences between the parties to the present proceedings arising out of two contracts — though the appellant-Railway has in its pleadings made a feeble attempt to contend that the process of arbitration arising out of the said Contract has been finalized, no material, whatsoever, has been laid before the Court in support thereof — arbitration proceedings to resolve the disputes and differences arising out of Contract No. CAO/CON/738 has not even commenced. A period of nearly two decades has elapsed since the contractor had raised his claims for alleged wrongful termination of the two contracts — situation is distressing and to say the least disturbing. The power of the Court under the Act has to be exercised to effectuate the remedy provided thereunder and to facilitate the mechanism contemplated therein — where the procedure and process under the Act has been rendered futile, the power of the Court to depart from the agreed terms of appointment of arbitrators must be acknowledged in the light of the several decisions noticed — no infirmity muchless any illegality or failure of justice can be said to be occasioned by the order passed by the High Court so as to warrant any interference — Supreme Court dismisses this appeal filed by the appellant-railways. However, in the facts of the case — Hon'ble Court does not deem it appropriate to burden the appellant with any costs.

2014 SCCL.COM 413(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 7692 of 2014)
A. Francis Appellant versus The Management of Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd., Tamil Nadu Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/13/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal.
Subject Index: Service Matter — the entitlement of the appellant – A. Francis to salary in the higher post of Assistant Manager wherein he had worked from 28th February, 2001 till 31st May, 2005 — the order dated 28th February, 2001, by which the appellant was allowed to discharge duties in the post of Assistant Manager had made it clear that the appellant would not be entitled to claim any benefit therefrom including higher salary and further that he would continue to draw his salary in the post of Assistant Labour Welfare Officer. If the above was an express term of the order allowing him to discharge duties in the higher post, it is difficult to see as to how the said condition can be overlooked or ignored — no merit in the appeal — appeal dismissed.

2014 SCCL.COM 415(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 660 of 2007 With Criminal Appeal No. 848,855,876 of 2011 and Criminal Appeal No. 1710-1717 of 2014)
Union of India and Another Appellants versus Sanjeev V. Deshpande Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/12/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Chief Justice R.M. Lodha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri.
Subject Index: Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,1985 — Prosecution under — each one of the accused is alleged to be in possession of some psychotropic substance mentioned in the Schedule to the Act. Eventually, the question is whether persons accused of committing an offence under the Act could be enlarged on bail in view of the stipulations contained under Section 37 of the Act. In some of these cases, bail was granted by the concerned High Court and in some cases, bail was rejected — on the analysis of the provisions of chapters VI and VII of the 1985 Rules, Court is of the opinion, both these Chapters contain Rules permitting and regulating the import and export of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances other than those specified in the Schedule-I to the 1985 Rules subject to various conditions and procedure stipulated in Chapter VI. Whereas Chapter VII deals exclusively with various other aspects of DEALING IN psychotropic substances and the conditions subject to which such DEALING IN is permitted — both Rules 53 and 64 are really in the nature of exception to the general scheme of Chapters VI and VII respectively containing a list of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances which cannot be dealt in any manner notwithstanding the other provisions of these two chapters — neither Rule 53 nor Rule 64 is a source of authority for prohibiting the DEALING IN narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, the source is Section 8. Rajesh Kumar Gupta’s case in Court's view is wrongly decided — the complete analysis of the implications of Section 80 (Section 80. Application of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 not barred — the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (23 of 1940) or the rules made thereunder.) of the Act is not really called for in the instant case. It is only required to be stated that essentially the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 deals with various operations of manufacture, sale, purchase etc. of drugs generally whereas Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 deals with a more specific class of drugs and, therefore, a special law on the subject — further the provisions of the Act operate in addition to the provisions of 1940 Act — the fact that most of these matters are old matters [pertaining to years 2006 to 2013], Court deems it appropriate to remit all these matters to the concerned High Courts for passing of appropriate orders in the light of this judgment.

2014 SCCL.COM 414(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 1684 of 2014)
Pawan Kumar Ralli Appellant versus Maninder Singh Narula Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/11/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Smt. Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai and Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana.
Subject Index: Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138 — Criminal Proceedings — initiated by the appellant against the respondent — quashed by the High Court — appeal — the case of the appellant is that the High Court was not justified in exercising extra-ordinary — jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr.P.C. The High Court incorrectly considered the handwritten note as legal notice and calculated the limitation period accordingly. Whereas, the handwritten note was only an intimation to the accused — the appellant should not have been deprived of the remedy provided by the Legislature — the remedy so provided was to enable a genuine litigant to pursue his case against a defaulter by overcoming the technical difficulty of limitation. Hence, the High Court has committed an error by not considering the issue of limitation on merits — the High Court was not right in quashing the complaint merely on the ground that complaint is barred by limitation, that too a plea which was taken for the first time before the High Court. On the other hand, the High Court ought to have remanded the matter to the Trial Court for deciding the issue of limitation — by this observation Court is not laying down a legal proposition that without even filing an application seeking condonation of delay at an initial stage, complainant can be given opportunity at any stage of the proceeding — in order to meet the ends of justice, the Hon'ble Supreme Court exercises discretion under Article 142 of the Constitution and sets aside the impugned judgment of the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings and restore the criminal proceedings before the Trial Court.

2014 SCCL.COM 411(Case No: Criminal Appeal Nos. 1668-1670 of 2014)
J.J. Irani and another Appellants versus State of Jharkhand         Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/8/2014.
Judge(s):  Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.A. Bobde.
Subject Index: Factories Act, 1948 — Section 106 — whether the complaint made by the Inspector of Factories that the appellants have allegedly committed offences was made within three months of the date on which the alleged commission of the offence came to the knowledge of the Inspector, as required by Section 106 of the Factories Act, 1948 — at the relevant time the appellant No. 1 - Dr. J.J. Irani was “Occupier” and the appellant No. 2 - Mr. P.N. Roy was “Manager” of the factory within the meaning of the Act — On 3rd March, 1989, the Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited (TISCO) celebrated the 150th birthday of Mr. J.N. Tata, as Foundation Day — there was panic due to the fire. As a result 18 to 20 persons died on the spot and a larger number were admitted with burn injuries at the Tata Hospital, some of whom later succumbed to their injuries — Chief Justice Chandrachud (Retd.) eventually assessed the compensation in November, 2000 for an aggregate sum of Rs.5.47 crores — TISCO has deposited an amount of Rs. 6.95 crores in the Registry of the Supreme Court — the appellants and TISCO have no grievance whatsoever in making any payment to the victims by way of compensation since the accident was a terrible tragedy — the Judgment and Order of the High Court dated 15.6.2007 is set aside and Criminal complaints are dismissed.

2014 SCCL.COM 406(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 10829-10830 of 2010)
Puducherry S. C. People Welfare Association Appellant versus Chief Secretary to Govt Union Territory of Pondicherry and others Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/7/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. M. Lodha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph.
Subject Index: Constitutional India — Article 341(1), 341(2) — once Presidential Order has been issued under Article 341(1) or Article 342(1), any amendment in the Presidential Order can only be made by the Parliament by law as provided in Article 341(2) or Article 342(2), as the case may be, and in no other manner. The interpretation of “resident” in the Presidential Order as “of origin” amounts to altering the Presidential Order — the impugned Government Orders - G.O.M. 11/2005 and G.O.M. 12/2005 - not being in conformity and consonance with the Presidential Order, 1964 cannot be sustained in law and have to be set aside — the appellant is an association representing the Scheduled Caste residents who have permanent residence/place of abode in Puducherry. The association filed two Writ Petitions before the High Court challenging the two Government Orders being G.O.Ms.No.11/2005/Wel(SCW II)

2014 SCCL.COM 405(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 1671 of 2011)
Ramaiah @ Rama Appellant versus State of Karnataka Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/7/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. K. Sikri.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201and 176 read with section 3,4 and 6(2) of the Dowry Prohibition Act — charge under — there were no solid and weighty reasons to reverse the verdict of acquittal and to convict the appellant under the given circumstances — the Hon'ble Supreme Court allows this appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court, holding that the appellant is not guilty of the charges foisted against him.

2014 SCCL.COM 404(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 7483-7496, 7498-7517, 7519-7523, 7525-7529 and 7565-7573 of 2014)
Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Appellant versus Dwarka Prasad Koolwal & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/7/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph.
Subject Index: Contributory Provident Fund Scheme — Pension Scheme and the General Provident Fund Scheme — whether the respondents were entitled, as of right, to one more opportunity to switch-over from the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme of which they were members, to the Pension Scheme and the General Provident Fund Scheme implemented by the appellant with effect from 28th November, 1988? — the contention of the respondents is that they were unaware of the switch-over option since they were posted in remote areas of Rajasthan, while the contention of the appellant is that a large number of opportunities extending over 8 years were given to the respondents to exercise the switchover option and that they could not claim any right to any further opportunity to make the switch over — the contention of the appellant must be accepted and the impugned judgment and order dated 17th May, 2012 accepting the contention of the respondents has to be set aside.

2014 SCCL.COM 398(Case No: Criminal Appeal No.1664 of 2014)
Sunil Kumar….Appellant versus Vipin Kumar and others …Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/7/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra & Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.Gopala Gowda .
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 389 — enlarging the respondents on bail — discretionary power — rightly applied by High Court — both the Criminal Appeal and Criminal Revision filed by both the parties are pending before the High Court which means that the convictions of the respondents are not confirmed by the appellate court. Secondly, it is an admitted fact that the respondents had been granted bail earlier and they did not misuse the liberty — the High Court has taken into consideration all the relevant facts including the fact that the chance of the appeal being heard in the near future is extremely remote, hence, the High Court has released the respondents on bail on the basis of sound legal reasoning.

2014 SCCL.COM 396(Case No: Civil Appeal No.7414 of 2014)
Nawal Kishore Sharma….Appellant versus Union of India and others …Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/7/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi & Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal .
Subject Index: Territorial jurisdiction — dismissal of writ petition by Patna High Court — appeal — appellant had joined the off-shore Department of the Shipping Corporation of India and after about eight years he was transferred from the off-shore duty to a main fleet in the Foreign Going Department — it is the case of the appellant that he was found medically fit in the medical test conducted by the Marine Medical Services in February, 2009 and thereafter, on 29.9.2009, an agreement known as the articles of agreement for employment of seafarers was executed for appellant’s off-shore duty. On 18.6.2010, when the appellant reported sickness i.e. cough, abdominal pain, swelling in leg and difficulty in breathing, he was sent for medical treatment ashore at Adani, Mundra Port. The Medical Officer ashore advised him for admission in the Hospital and accordingly he was signed off for further medical treatment. Thereafter, he was considered permanently unfit for sea service due to dilated cardiomyopathy (heart muscle disease) shipping Deptt. cancelled registration as a seaman — since the appellant was declared unfit for sea service due to heart problem (organic ailment) he will be entitled to receive severance compensation of Rs.2,75,000/-, which was although offered, but not accepted by the appellant — at the time when the writ petition was heard for the purpose of grant of interim relief, the respondents instead of raising any objection with regard to territorial jurisdiction opposed the prayer on the ground that the writ petitioner-appellant was offered an amount of Rs.2.75 lakhs, but he refused to accept the same and challenged the order granting severance compensation by filing the writ petition. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained.

2014 SCCL.COM 395(Case No: Civil Appeal No.7391 of 2014)
State of M.P. and others .….Appellant(s) versus Anees Khan …Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/7/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S.Thakur & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel.
Subject Index: M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 — Section 108 — application under — for grant of back wages — appeal arises out of the proceedings under — the workman was engaged as assistant of driver of Roller No. D.R.R. 1080 of PWD at Tarana on 16.08.1991 at a total pay of Rs.1215.00 per month. He was disengaged from work on 01.07.1992. Challenging the same, the workman filed Case No. 236/92 before the Labour Court, Ujjain, M.P. claiming reinstatement with back wages. By order dated 07.02.1994, the Labour Court passed an ex parte order directing the State to reinstate the workman at his original post with back wages from the date of termination till the date of the order. Though the State of M.P. sought setting aside of the ex parte order but did not succeed. The workman, instead of taking any proceedings for enforcing the order of reinstatement, only sought enforcement for back wages — the workman initiated second round of proceedings by filing a fresh application No.62/2001 under Section 108 of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 before the Labour Court on 17.3.2001 claiming back wages — there appears to be substance in the plea that the workman abandoned his right to seek reinstatement and his conduct in not reporting for duty disentitles him even to back wages. The workman worked for less than one year without any regular appointment. Though the order of the Labour Court dated 07.02.1994 became final and in proceedings to enforce the said order, the workman was paid back wages from 01.07.1992 to 07.02.1994, since he did not report for duty nor took any proceedings for seeking enforcement of order of reinstatement, he could not be allowed any further relief — the workman is not entitled to any further relief, Supreme Court considers it appropriate to direct the State to pay a sum of Rs. 1 lac to the workman within three months.

2014 SCCL.COM 391(Case No: Civil Appeal No.7392 of 2014)
State of Bihar and others. ... Appellant(s) versus Chandreshwar Pathak ... Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/7/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S.Thakur & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel.
Subject Index: Services termination order passed by the Criminal Investigation Department, Patna quashed by Patna High Court — appeal by State of Bihar — in the absence of any advertisement or selection process, the appointment of the respondent is not protected and could be validly terminated. Learned single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition while the Division Bench erred in interfering with the same.

2014 SCCL.COM 409(Case No: Civil Appeal No.3498 of 2008)
State of M.P. and another Appellants versus Anshuman Shukla Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/6/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur, Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Gopala Gowda and Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Nagappan.
Subject Index: Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 — Section 7 — Petition Under — raising certain claims about the works contract executed between the parties. The petition was partly allowed by the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal vide its award dated 18.6.2003. An amount of Rs.6,05,624/- with interest @12% per annum was awarded from 24.04.1998 till the date of realisation — the appellants filed a Civil Revision No.1330 of 2003 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh under Section 19 of the Act of 1983, along with an application under Section 5 — there is neither any evidence to suggest that the legislative intent was to bar the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act on Section 19 of the Act of 1983. The cases which were relied upon to dismiss the Special Leave Petition, namely Nasiruddin and Popular Construction can be distinguished both in terms of the facts as well as the law applicable, and thus, have no bearing on the facts of the present case — the Hon'ble Court answer the points framed in the affirmative in favour of the appellants. The impugned judgments and orders are set aside and both the appeals are allowed. The delay in filing revision petitions is condoned and the cases are remanded to the High Court to examine the same on merits.

2014 SCCL.COM 383(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 7227-7257 of 2014)
Mohinder Singh and others Appellants versus State of Haryana Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/5/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur and Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Nagappan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel .
Subject Index: Land Compensation — the High Court on the facts of the case was justified in taking into consideration the size of the plots which were exhibited for the purpose of comparison with the size of the plot acquired, but Supreme Court is unable to uphold the cut of 40% which has been imposed by the High Court since the acquired lands are already within developed municipal limits and the deduction of 1/4th the market value made by the Reference Court is appropriate and liable to be restored — the appeals preferred by the claimants are partly allowed and the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court is set aside and the Award passed by the Reference Court is restored.

2014 SCCL.COM 380(Case No: Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. 403 of 2013)
Sree Mahesh Stationaries and another Petitioners versus Indiabulls Financial Services Ltd. Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/5/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur and Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Nagappan .
Subject Index: Negotiable Instruments Act — Section 138 — Criminal Procedure Code 1973 — section 406 — petition under for seeking transfer of criminal complaint — from the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gurgaon, Haryana to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Bangalore — the petitioner appears to have borrowed a loan of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakh) for business purposes from the respondent-company. A cheque allegedly issued in partial repayment of the loan amount and drawn on the Syndicate Bank, City Market Branch, Bangalore, when presented for encashment to ING Vysya Bank, Gurgaon appears to have been dishonoured resulting in the issue of statutory notices to the petitioners and eventual filing of a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Gurgaon under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — the Magistrate has taken cognizance and summoned the petitioners for appearance to face the trial. Petitioners have, in that backdrop, filed the present transfer petition seeking transfer of the complaint afore-mentioned from Gurgaon to the competent Court at Bangalore — petitioners’ case, as is evident from the averments made in the transfer petition, is that the Courts at Gurgaon have no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint specially when the cheque in question was issued and dishonoured at Bangalore and the offence, if any, was committed only at Bangalore. Issue of statutory notices to the petitioners from Gurgaon also does not confer jurisdiction upon the Courts concerned or justify continuance of the proceedings at Gurgaon — issue of a statutory notice by itself cannot confer jurisdiction upon the Court to take cognizance of an offence under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act.

2014 SCCL.COM 375(Case No: Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. 197 of 2012)
M/s Apex Distributors and another Petitioners versus M/s Timex Group India Ltd. Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/5/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.s. Thakur and Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Nagappan .
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 406 — petition under — for seeking transfer of Criminal Complaint No.3960 of 2008 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Court at New Delhi to the Court competent to try the same at Pondicherry. The cheque in question appears to have been issued on Vyasya Bank Ltd., Vellore, Tamil Nadu. When presented for encashment the same was dishonoured, whereupon, the respondent got notices issued to the petitioners asking them to pay the cheque amount within the statutory period of fifteen days from the date of the receipt of the said notices. Failure of the petitioners to make the payment led to the filing of criminal complaint No.3960 of 2008 before the Metropolitan Magistrate at Patiala House, New Delhi in which the Court took cognizance and issued summons to the petitioners. The complaint, it is noteworthy, justified the institution of the case in Delhi on the solitary ground that the statutory notices demanding payment of the cheque amount had been issued to the petitioners from Delhi - dishonour of any such cheque was not, according to the petitioners, an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act aforementioned. That apart, the petitioners claim that the Courts in Delhi have no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Simply because the statutory notices were issued to the petitioners from Delhi did not clothe the Courts in Delhi to take cognizance of the offence — in the circumstances and keeping in view the admitted factual position that the cheque in question was dishonoured at Vellore where the bank on which it was drawn is located, there is no reason why the complaint filed by the respondents should not be transferred to Vellore for further proceedings. The fact that petitioner No.2 is suffering from several medical problems will also, be taken care by the transfer of the proceedings from Delhi to Vellore.

2014 SCCL.COM 377(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 7113 of 2014)
D.D. Tewari (D) Thr. Lrs. Appellants versus Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/4/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Mishra and Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Gopala Gowda .
Subject Index: Interest — grant of — on the delayed payment — on the retiral benefits of pension and gratuity payable not granted — the respondents have erroneously withheld payment of gratuity amount for which the appellants herein are entitled in law for payment of penal amount on the delayed payment of gratuity under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 — court awards interest at the rate of 9% on the delayed payment of pension and gratuity amount from the date of entitlement till the date of the actual payment. If this amount is not paid within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the same shall carry interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of amount falls due to the deceased employee.

2014 SCCL.COM 376(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 7191 of 2014)
Precious Jewels and another Appellants versus Varun Gems Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/4/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikramajit Sen .
Subject Index: Trade Marks Act, 1999 — being aggrieved by an interim order passed in a civil suit, the appellants-original defendants have approached this Court by way of this appeal — it is an admitted fact that the partners of the plaintiff as well as the defendant firms belong to the same family sharing a common surname — “Rakyan” — the plaintiff claiming trade mark of their surname “RAKYAN” filed a suit praying, inter alia, that the defendants be restrained from doing their business in the name and style of “NEENA AND RAVI RAKYAN” — the defendants are doing their business in their own name and their bona fides have not been disputed. It is also not in dispute that the plaintiff and defendants are related to each other and practically all the family members are in the business of jewellery — looking at the provisions of Section 35 of the Act, there is no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff and therefore, the defendants could not have been restrained from doing their business.

2014 SCCL.COM 374(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 7167-7168 of 2014)
Gorkha Security Services Appellants versus Govt. of Nct of Delhi and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/4/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.Chelameshwar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri .
Subject Index: Show Cause notice — present appeals raise an interesting question of law pertaining to the form and content of show cause notice, that is required to be served, before deciding as to whether the noticee is to be blacklisted or not — there is no quarrel between the parties on the proposition that it is a mandatory requirement to give such a show cause notice before black listing. It is also undisputed that in the present case the show cause notice which was given for alleged failure on the part of the appellant herein to commence/ execute the work that was awarded to the appellant, did not specifically propose the action of blacklisting the appellant firm. The question is as to whether it is a mandatory requirement that there has to be a stipulation contained in the show cause notice that action of blacklisting is proposed? If yes, is it permissible to discern it from the reading of impugned show cause notice, even when not specifically mentioned, that the appellant understood that it was about the proposed action of blacklisting that could be taken against him — the impugned judgment of the High Court does not decide the issue in correct prospective. The impugned order dated 11.9.2013 passed by the respondents blacklisting the appellant without giving the appellant notice thereto, is contrary to the principles of natural justice as it was not specifically proposed and, therefore, there was no show cause notice given to this effect before taking action of blacklisting against the appellant — the impugned action of blacklisting the appellant set aside and quashed.

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