Show the cases, Nominal/Party Name wise
Show the cases, Date of Decision wise
LATEST CASES
(for last one month)
Total No. of Cases: 40

2014 SCCL.COM 576(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 1152 of 2009)
Kanchanben Purshottambhai Bhanderi Appellant versus State of Gujarat Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 12/5/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shiva Kirti Singh  .
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 304B and 498A — conviction under — also conviction under section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act with simple imprisonment for five years and penalty of Rs.3,000/- with default clause. For conviction under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, she has been inflicted with simple imprisonment of six months and penalty of Rs. 500/-. The sentences have to run concurrently — on a careful perusal of the entire materials, it is found that the appellant cannot claim parity with the case of accused Nos.1 or 3 who were acquitted by the High Court and by the Trial Court respectively. The other criticisms against the prosecution case were raised before the court below and those have been satisfactorily dealt with by them — no merit in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed — ends of justice would be satisfactorily met by reducing the sentence of eight years RI for offences under Section 304B and 498A to seven years RI.  

2014 SCCL.COM 575(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 2530 of 2014 @ (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 2038 of 2013))
Zorawar Singh & another Appellants versus Gurbax Singh Bains & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 12/4/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit.
Subject Index: Propriety of constitution of SIT — dealt with by the Supreme Court.  

2014 SCCL.COM 572(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 10784 of 2014 @ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 24652 of 2013)
New India Assurance Company Ltd Appellant versus Genus Ppower Infrastructure Ltd Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 12/4/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit .
Subject Index: Arbitration Petition — appeal challenges the order dated 30.05.2013 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Arbitration Petition No.212 of 2011 appointing an arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the present parties — the plea raised by the respondent is bereft of any details and particulars, and cannot be anything but a bald assertion. Given the fact that there was no protest or demur raised around the time or soon after the letter of subrogation was signed, that the notice dated 31.03.2011 itself was nearly after three weeks and that the financial condition of the respondent was not so precarious that it was left with no alternative but to accept the terms as suggested, that the discharge in the present case and signing of letter of subrogation were not because of exercise of any undue influence. Such discharge and signing of letter of subrogation was voluntary and free from any coercion or undue influence — upon execution of the letter of subrogation, there was full and final settlement of the claim — no arbitrable dispute existed so as to exercise power under section 11 of the Act. The High Court was not therefore justified in exercising power under Section 11 of the Act.  

2014 SCCL.COM 568(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 10785 of 2014 @ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 22941 of 2014)
Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. Appellant versus UOI and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 12/4/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit .
Subject Index:  Bank guarantee — the appellant to bear the cost for the bank guarantee furnished by the present Respondent No.5 — appeal seeks to challenge the order dated 30.07.2014 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition No.4274 of 2010 to the extent it directed — the interest of the appellant was well secured by the Award dated 30.03.2011 which was a Consent Award. Respondent No.5 had an interim order in its favour passed by the High Court and it was only because of the insistence on part of appellant that Respondent No.5 was directed to furnish the bank guarantee — it is, therefore, but logical and consequential that the appellant must bear the costs for securing such bank guarantee.

2014 SCCL.COM 582(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 2134 of 2006 with Civil Appeal No. 7088 of 2002, Civil Appeal No. 7092 of 2002, Civil Appeal No. 7094 of 2002 Civil Appeal No. 802 of 2005 Civil Appeal No. 10719 of 2014 (Arising Out of S.L.P.(C) No. 4221 of 2012) Β )
Forbes Forbes Campbell & Co. Ltd. Appellant versus Board of Trustees, Port of Bombay Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 12/3/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal.
Subject Index: Demurrage and Port charges β€” payment of β€” the liability of the agent of a ship owner to pay demurrage and port charges to the Board of Trustees of a Port in respect of goods brought into the port and warehoused by the said authority β€” the consignee of the goods not having either cleared the same or having responded to any of the notices issued, the goods were sold by public auction by the Port Trust authority after almost four years of receipt thereof. The amount fetched in the auction fell short of the total charges payable which led the said authority to file a suit against the Steamer Agent for the balance amount. The suit was dismissed. In appeal, the High Court reversed the decree holding the Steamer Agent to be liable. In doing so, the High Court held that the ratio of the law laid down by this Court in Trustees of the Port of Madras through Its Chairman Vs. K.P.V. Sheikh Mohd. Rowther & Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Another[(1997) 10 SCC 285 = AIR 1995 SC 1922] β€” once the bill of lading is endorsed or the delivery order is issued it is the consignee or endorsee who would be liable to pay the demurrage charges and other dues of the Port Trust authority. In all other situations the contract of bailment is one between the Steamer Agent (bailor) and the Port Trust Authority (bailee) giving rise to the liability of the Steamer Agent for such charges till such time that the bill of lading is endorsed or delivery order is issued by the Steamer Agent β€” the special provisions of Sections 61 and 62 of the Act which enable the Port Trust authority to proceed against the goods within its custody to recover the charges which may be payable to the Port Trust authority. Ordinarily and in the normal course if resort is made to the enabling provisions in the Act of 1963 to proceed against the goods for recovery of the charges payable to the Port Trust authority there may not be any occasion for the said authority to sustain any loss or even suffer any shortfall of the dues payable to it so as to initiate recovery proceedings against the ship owners.

2014 SCCL.COM 581(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 10689 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.29686 of 2013))
Sushil Kumar Dey Biswas & another Appellants versus Anil Kumar Dey Biswas Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 12/3/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel and Hon'ble Ms. Justice R. Banumathi .
Subject Index: Restoration of possession of the suit property β€” this appeal arises out of the Order dated 5.8.2013 passed by the Calcutta High Court in Civil Order No.718 of 2013, dismissing the civil revision filed by the appellants-defendants declining to order restoration of possession of the suit property and also the staircase β€” possession of the first floor alongwith staircase and the shop room on the ground floor should be restored to the appellants-defendants. Delay in filing the application for restoration of possession cannot be the reason for declining relief β€” impugned order of the High Court is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The respondent-plaintiff is directed to restore the staircase and the possession of one room, one bath and privy on the first floor and shop room in the ground floor to the appellants-defendants within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On failure to restore the possession, the appellants-defendants are at liberty to approach the trial court which shall pass appropriate order for ensuring compliance with the direction of this Court. Β 

2014 SCCL.COM 580(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 10690-10691 of 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 36800-36801 of 2012))
Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation etc. Appellants versus Jadeja Govubha Chhanubha & another Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 12/3/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur and Hon'ble Ms. Justice R. Banumathi.
Subject Index: Industrial dispute β€” the reinstatement of the respondent in service does not appear to be an acceptable option β€” monetary compensation, keeping in view the length of service rendered by the respondent, the wages that he was receiving during that period which according to the evidence was around Rs.24.75 per day should sufficiently meet the ends of justice. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances, court is of the view that award of a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs Fifty Thousand only) should meet the ends of justice β€” the award made by the Labour Court and the orders of the High Court shall stand modified to the extent that the respondent shall be paid monetary compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- in full and final settlement of his claim. Β 

2014 SCCL.COM 579(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 1999 of 2008)
Prafulla C. Dave & others Appellants versus Municipal Commissioner & others Respondents Β 
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 12/3/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal.
Subject Index: Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 β€” section 21 β€” whether the plan first prepared and notified under Section 21 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (β€˜MRTP Act’) is the final development plan and the plan prepared under Section 38 is only a revision of the final development plan proposed under Section 21 of the MRTP Act and as such, the notice contemplated under Section 127(2) of the MRTP Act and the period prescribed is from the publication of the development plan first notified under Section 21 and not the revised development plan under Section 38?” β€” the notice under Section 127 by the appellants was issued only two years after the final revised plan under Section 38 had come into operation. The rejection of the appellants’ plea before the appellate authority under Section 47 of the Act as well as the rejection of the writ petition filed by the appellants before the Bombay High Court was, therefore, fully justified β€” no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 20th September, 2007 passed by the High Court of Bombay. Β 

2014 SCCL.COM 571(Case No: Crl. M.P. No. 10148 of 2013 in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 2238 OF 1995))
Chaman Lal Saraf (Dead) By LRs. & others Petitioners versus State of Haryana & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 12/3/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Y. EQBAL and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose.
Subject Index: Permission to reinstate — the present Crl. M.P. No. 10148 of 2013 in S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 2238 of 1995 has been filed by the applicant on 03.04.2013 seeking clarification of the order dated 03.11.2003 passed by this Court in Crl. M.P. No. 8421 of 2003 in S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 2238 of 1995, vide which the said Misc. Petition was dismissed with costs and this Court did not grant permission to reinstate the applicant Ramphal — the applicant (Ramphal) has tried to circumvent the process of Court by approaching the Court in guise of different reasons — the applicant has tried to get himself reinstated, or avail retiral benefits contrary to the earlier order of this Court. Present application for clarification of the order dated 03-11-2003 again is a vexatious one — no need for clarification as the order is already very comprehensive and succinct — the petitioners under the garb of clarifications tried to have an order to reopen the case and to deal with the same when all the points have been decided — the petitioner is trying to abuse the process of the court and this court does not appreciate such steps rather deprecate the same.  

2014 SCCL.COM 570(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 10707-10711 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 29322 of 2010) with (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 9869 of 2008) with (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 30528 of 2009) with (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 29320 of 2010) and (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 29324 of 2010))
Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & others Appellants versus M/s Adarsh Textiles & another Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 12/3/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra .
Subject Index:  Electricity supply to power loom bunkers — whether policy decision dated 14.6.2006 issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh regarding supply of the electricity to power loom bunkers on the flat rate could have been applied by the U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission to the industries availing HV-2 category connection — the Commission fixed tariff for the year 2004-2005, whereby rebate of Rs.5,000/- per consumer was granted to power loom bunkers availing LMV-2 and LMV-6 connections in accordance with policy of the U.P. Government — LMV-2 is a non domestic light, power and electricity connection, LMV-6 electricity connection is of small and medium power having connected load up to 100 HP for industrial/processing or agro-industrial purposes, power loom, etc. HV-2 connection is provided for utilising large and heavy power for industrial and other purposes having contracted load of above 100 HP. Industries which are having load more than 100 HP are covered by tariff HV-2 — the view taken by the High Court of Allahabad cannot be said to be sustainable while extending the benefit of order dated 14.6.2006 to the HV-2 consumers. The demand raised in Vikas Textiles’ case for the period from April, 2007 to December, 2007 was also appropriate.

2014 SCCL.COM 567(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 10613 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 36237 of 2012))
State of M.P. & others Appellants versus Parvez Khan Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 12/1/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel .
Subject Index: Compassionate appointment — whether the refusal by the competent authority to give compassionate appointment in police service on the ground of criminal antecedents of a candidate who is acquitted for want of evidence or who is discharged from the criminal case on account of compounding can be justified — held the Division Bench of the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order rejecting the claim of the respondent for recruitment to the police service by way of giving him compassionate appointment.  

2014 SCCL.COM 566(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 10608-10609 of 2014 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 19079-19080 of 2014])
HDFC Bank Ltd. Appellant versus Kumari Reshma and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 12/1/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit .
Subject Index: Motor accident — compensation — the liability to satisfy the award is that of the owner, the respondent no. 2 herein and not that of the financier and accordingly that part of the direction in the award is set aside.  

2014 SCCL.COM 574(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 420 of 2012)
Suresh & another Appellants versus State of Haryana Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 11/28/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Gopala Gowda and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel.
Subject Index: A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 302 read with sections 34, 364-A, 201 and 120-B — conviction under — appeal. B) Compensation — to be paid — there is no reason as to why the victim family should not be awarded compensation under Section 357-A by the State — the State of Haryana is liable to pay compensation to the family of the deceased — the interim compensation payable for the two deaths to be rupees ten lacs, without prejudice to any other rights or remedies of the victim family in any other proceedings.  

2014 SCCL.COM 550(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 10592 of 2014 (Arising Out of SLP (C) No. 16780 of 2011))
S. Bhaskar Reddy & another Appellants versus Superintendent of Police & another Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 11/28/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Gopala Gowda and Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Nagappan .
Subject Index:  Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (classification, control & Appeal) Rules, 1991 — Rule9(ix) — order of dismissal passed— major penalty — the first respondent being the borrowing authority has no competence to pass orders of dismissal against the appellants. Only the second respondent, who is the lending authority, has got the competence under Rule 30 of the Rules — the Tribunal after considering the factual and rival legal contentions and appreciating the material evidence on record set aside the orders of dismissal passed against the appellants — both the High Court and Tribunal have erred in not considering this important undisputed fact regarding honourable acquittal of the appellants on the charges in the criminal case which are similar in the disciplinary proceedings — court has to set aside the orders of dismissal passed against the appellants by accepting the alternative legal plea — appropriate for the court in this case to pass an order of Compulsory Retirement for them from their service as provided under Rule 9 clause (vii) of the Rules taking their service from the date of their appointment.

2014 SCCL.COM 549(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 2494 of 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 2307 of 2012))
K. Ravi Kumar Appellant versus State of Karnataka Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 11/28/2014.
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 302 — conviction under — upheld by the sessions Judge and the sentence of imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.10,000/- awarded to him — The appellant has also been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs.2,000/- — the appellant in heated exchange of words lost his mental balance and poured kerosene on Padma setting her to burn. However, the fact remains that it was an outcome of sudden outburst and heated exchange with no predetermined motive per se to kill her — no conclusive evidence was adduced by the prosecution to prove any kind of constant quarrel ever ensued in the last 9 long years between the couple and that too for a cause known to others which could lead to killing Padma — these reasons are sufficient to give benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC to the appellant and enables the Court to hold that the offence in question was not murder but it was an offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder as specified in Exception 4 to Section 300 and hence punishable under Section 304 part II IPC — the appellant shall stand convicted for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC and accordingly sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years.

2014 SCCL.COM 584(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 3673 of 2009)
Government of Andhra Pradesh and another Appellants versus K. Varalakshmi and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 11/27/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shiva Kirti Singh Β .
Subject Index: A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 β€” section 3(5) β€” sale transactions β€” protected under β€” it was averred in the plaint that the original assignee i.e. S. Bangaramma was a landless poor, who sold the suit land in the year 1970 to another landless poor Durga Ramalingeswara Rao, who purchased it in good faith for valuable consideration much earlier to the enactment of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 β€” the heirs of the said Ramalingeswara Rao in turn sold the suit land to landless poor, who are the plaintiffs-respondents herein. Hence, both the sale transactions are protected under Section 3(5) of the aforesaid Act β€” no evidence whatsoever was adduced on behalf of the defendants appellants in support of their defence, which has been rightly noticed by the High Court β€” the transactions made in favour of the plaintiff and his predecessors are fully saved by sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Act.

2014 SCCL.COM 577(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 3906 of 2009)
M.P. Singh Bargoti Appellant versus State of Madhya Pradesh & another Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 11/27/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shiva Kirti Singh .
Subject Index: Promotion — simple case of the appellant is that he has been deprived of benefits of timely consideration and promotion from the post of Inspector to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police — the Tribunal and the High Court erred in law as well as on facts in denying relief to the appellant. The position would have been different if appellant’s junior had been promoted from a date subsequent to his superannuation. Then appellant would have suffered only on account of passage of time or innocuous delay but in the present facts he has suffered hostile and arbitrary discrimination vis-ΰ-vis a junior. The order under appeal is therefore set aside — the appellant was in service only till 31.03.1998, he is held entitled to notional promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police w.e.f. 29.05.1997 till 31.03.1998. He will be deemed to have superannuated on that post and shall be given all the post retirement benefits by recalculating the same on the premise that he held the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police from 29.05.1997 till his superannuation on 31.03.1998. The revised pensionary benefits as well as arrears on that account should be made available to the appellant at the earliest and in any case within three months — the appellant is held entitled to a consolidated cost of Rs.50,000/- which should also be paid along with other benefits within the time indicated.

2014 SCCL.COM 548(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 10565-10667 of 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 4726, 9615 and25824 of 2011))
State of Assam Appellant versus Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 11/27/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur and Hon'ble Ms. Justice R. Banumathi .
Subject Index: Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 — entitlement to restoration of the possession of the land in dispute — appeals by special leave are directed against an order dated 21st September, 2010 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Assam at Guahati whereby Writ Appeal No.202 of 2007 filed by the respondents herein has been allowed, order dated 13th April, 2007 passed by a learned Single Judge of that Court set aside and the respondents held entitled to restoration of the possession of the land in dispute — the disputed extent of land i.e. 1 bigha, 4 Kathas, 16 laches also stands fully settled in favour of allottees. Such being the case the offer made by Shri Goswamy does not appear to be a feasible solution at this stage particularly when the allotments made are not in question nor have the allottees been impleaded as party respondents — the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is set aside and that passed by the Single Bench of that Court affirmed.  

2014 SCCL.COM 585(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 10562 of 2014 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 35854 of 2009])
Gram Panchayat, Village Bahmanian Appellant versus Jagir Singh and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 11/26/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph.
Subject Index: Encroachment on land belonging to Panchayat β€” alleged encroachment is not on a public street but a pathway leading to the house of the fourth respondent from whom he had bought the land β€” the alleged encroachment is in Khasra No. 112 which is a gair mumkin street as per Revenue records β€” the first respondent constructed the house more than a decade back. By demolition of the house and by restoring the alleged pathway, is not going to enure to the benefit of anybody β€” in the interest of justice and for advancing the cause of justice, court is of the view that the dispute should be given a quietus once for all. Without treating it as a precedent, the Panchayat is directed to acknowledge the deposit of double the market value already made by the first respondent, as directed by the learned Single Judge, as damages for the alleged encroachment β€” the appellant-Gram Panchayat cannot be said to be acting without bonafides when they take appropriate action in accordance with law. It is the encroachment made by the first respondent, which may not be deliberate, that dragged the appellant to litigation before various forums β€” the first respondent instead should bear the litigation expenses of the appellant-Gram Panchayat, which the court quantify to be Rs.35,000/-. This amount shall be paid by the first respondent to the appellant-Gram Panchayat within a month from today.

2014 SCCL.COM 583(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 4232 of 2007)
Archana Girish Sabnis Appellant versus Bar Council of India and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 11/26/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre .
Subject Index: Practicing law β€” licence β€” the Bar Council of India is not bound to grant a license as claimed by the appellant. Pursuing law and practicing law are two different things. One can pursue law but for the purpose of obtaining license to practice, he or she must fulfill all the requirements and conditions prescribed by the Bar Council of India. Β 

2014 SCCL.COM 578(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 10532 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 5346 of 2012))
Sita Ram Appellant versus State of Haryana & another Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 11/25/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.Gopala Gowda and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel .
Subject Index: Acquisition proceedings β€” in respect of the appellant’s land/building have elapsed. I.A. No. 5 is allowed. The appeal is disposed of by quashing the acquisition proceedings of the land/building of the appellant.

2014 SCCL.COM 573(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 3147-3149 of 2012 with Civil Appeal No. 1390 of 2013 S.L.P. (C) No. 19895 of 2008 S.L.P. (C) No. 20282 of 2008 S.L.P. (C) No. 21896 of 2010 S.L.P. (C) No. 18614 of 2012)
M/s. Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd. Appellant versus Governor, State of Orissa Through Chief Engineer Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 11/25/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble The Chief Justice H.L. Dattu and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre  .
Subject Index: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — section 31(7) — award of interest on interest from the date of award — whether permissible — whether the decision of this Court in State of Haryana and Others v. S.L. Arora and Company., (2010) 3 SCC 690, wherein it is held that an award of interest on interest from the date of award is not permissible under sub- section (7) of section 31 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is in consonance with earlier decisions of this Court. A two-Judge Bench of this Court, by the said reference order, is of the opinion that the present appeal and the connected matters would need to be heard by a Bench of three Judges of this Court — the amount award under Section 31(7)(a) of the Act, whether with interest or without interest, constitutes a "sum" for which the award is made — the arbitral award, is made in respect of a "sum" which includes the interest. It is, therefore, obvious that what carries under Section 31(7) (b) of the Act is the "sum directed to be paid by an arbitral award" and not any other amount much less by or under the name "interest" — the expression “grant of interest on interest” while exercising the power under Section 31(7) of the Act does not arise and, therefore, the Arbitral Tribunal is well empowered to grant interest even in the absence of clause in the contract for grant of interest.

2014 SCCL.COM 547(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 10531 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 14767 of 2012))
Associate Builders Appellant versus Delhi Development Authority Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 11/25/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.F. Nariman .
Subject Index: Arbitration Act, 1996 — section 37 — claims 9, 10, 11 and 15 have been allowed by the Arbitrator and the DDA’s objections have been dismissed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi. The Division Bench in an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 has stepped in to set aside the judgment of the Single Judge and negative these claims and court also concerned with claims 12 and 13 which have been scaled down by the Division Bench — the Single Judge is clearly right. Court has gone through all the 15 claims supplied to the court and court find that none of these claims are in fact overlapping. They are all contained under separate heads. This argument, therefore, must also fail — the appeal is, therefore, allowed and the judgment of the Division Bench is set aside. The judgment of the Single Judge is upheld and consequently, the Arbitral award dated 23rd May, 2005 is as a whole upheld.  

2014 SCCL.COM 453(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 1097 of 2012)
Jagdish & others Appellants versus State of Uttaranchal Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 11/25/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel and Hon'ble Ms. Justice R. Banumathi .
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 304B, 498A and 201 — conviction under — confirmed by High Court — so far as the sentence of appellants 2 and 3, it was stated that appellants 2 and 3 are having a physically handicapped child and they are also taking care of the son of deceased–Seema. Considering the passage of time and the facts and circumstances of the case, extreme penalty of life imprisonment is not justified and ends of justice would be met by reducing the sentence of imprisonment awarded against appellants 2 and 3 to seven years rigorous imprisonment — conviction of first appellant–Jagdish under Section 304B IPC is set aside and he is convicted under Section 498A IPC and is sentenced to the period already undergone by him.  

2014 SCCL.COM 452(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 10529 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 11696 of 2007))
Sri Sidhharth Viyas & another Appellants versus Ravi Nath Misra & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 11/25/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel and Hon'ble Ms. Justice R. Banumathi .
Subject Index: Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act, 1972 — section 12(3) — whether Section 12(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 providing for ‘deemed vacancy’ is applicable to a situation where the tenant or a member of his family builds, acquires or otherwise gets a vacant building in the area concerned after commencement of the tenancy but prior to application of the Act to the tenancy in question — the view taken by the High Court that acquisition of alternative accommodation by the tenant, prior to enforcement of the Act, is not covered by Section 12(3) of the Act is not correct in law. The Full Bench Judgment, to the extent it supports the said view, also does not lay down correct law and will stand overruled.

2014 SCCL.COM 451(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 2478 of 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 2480 of 2014))
Motilal Yadav Appellant versus State of Bihar Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 11/25/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikramajit Sen and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prafulla C. Pant .
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 364A read with sections 34 and 120B — conviction under — court unable to accept the submission of learned amicus curiae that not holding of test identification parade in the present case is fatal for the prosecution — no force in the appeal — dismissed.  

2014 SCCL.COM 455(Case No: I.A. No. 7 of 2014 in Civil Appeal No. 7148 of 2008)
Calcutta Port Trust & others Appellants versus Anadi Kumar Das (CAPT) & another Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 11/24/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Gopala Gowda and Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Nagappan.
Subject Index: Pension scheme — switching over from the CPF Scheme — option — exercise of — in the operative portion of the order of this Court dated 13.11.2013, the respondent is permitted to exercise the option of the pension scheme vide circular dated 19.02.1986 and further direction is given to the appellants that the needful be done within two months from the date of receipt of this order.  

2014 SCCL.COM 454(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 10304 of 2014)
High Court of Gujarat Appellant versus Hitendra Vrajlal Ashara & another Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 11/24/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Gopala Gowda and Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Nagappan.
Subject Index: A) Gujarat Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971 — no procedural irregularity has been committed by the Enquiry Officer in the disciplinary proceedings as the same was conducted in accordance with Gujarat Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971, and principles of natural justice — the enquiring authority had elaborately considered the charges leveled against the delinquent officer and rightly held to be proved — the Enquiry Officer has rightly rendered the finding against the delinquent and same was accepted by the High Court and on its recommendation the order of dismissal was passed by the appointing authority and it is legally justified. B) Labour Court Award — the respondent was working as a Judicial Officer under the administrative control of the High Court namely the appellant herein. Labour Court of Bhavnagar had passed ex-parte award dated 17.7.1993 in Reference (LCB) No.490 of 1990 in favour of workman, wherein his termination was set aside with a direction to grant consequential benefits. The employer filed Misc. Application No.92 of 1993 on 21.11.1993 to set aside the exparte award in the said case and the Labour Court dismissed the application on 28.4.1997 — respondent as In-charge Judge of the Labour Court of Bhavnagar allowed the employer’s Misc. Application No.37 of 1997 on 8.5.1998. The workman filed complaint dated 13.5.1998 before the President, Industrial Tribunal.

2014 SCCL.COM 556(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 1565 of 2012)
Naim and another Appellants versus State of Uttarakhand Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 11/21/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit .
Subject Index: Acquittal — set aside by the High Court — appeal — committal of offences under sections 302 read with section 34 and under section 504 IPC — in the instant case the common intention to bring about a definite result is evident from the circumstances on record. Additionally, the role of exhortation is also ascribed to the present appellants — section 34 IPC is definitely attracted and the High Court was completely justified in setting aside the order of acquittal. The order of acquittal as regards Kabir and Naim was perverse and unwarranted — order of the High Court confirmed and appeal dismissed.  

2014 SCCL.COM 553(Case No: Interlocutory Application No. 13 of 2011 in Civil Appeal No. 3303 of 1997)
Sri Srikanta D.N. Wadiyar (D) Through LRs Appellant versus State of Karnataka and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 11/21/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikramajit Sen and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prafulla C. Pant.
Subject Index: Bangalore Palace (Acquisition and Transfer) Act, 1996 — the respondent-State appears to have been allowed to utilize the palace land for road widening and construction of underpass — ready to surrender the required land as provided — Transfer Development Right (TDR) is given to them under the TDR Rules. Some of the appellants said to have already received usual compensation also — without prejudice to the rights of the parties, and keeping in mind the necessity of widening of the road, and the public interest, court thinks it just and proper to allow I.A. No. 13 of 2011 subject to condition that the appellants in the present appeal and the connected appeals shall be given TDR for widening of the road as per TDR Rules.  

2014 SCCL.COM 552(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 1407 of 2013)
Manoharlal Appellant versus State of M.P. Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 11/21/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit  .
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 376 — conviction under — the sequence of events as narrated would show that she had allegedly accompanied the appellant to various places —court finds extreme difficulty in relying upon the version of the victim alone to bring home the charge against the appellant. Court is inclined to give benefit of doubt to the appellant.  

2014 SCCL.COM 555(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 10418-10419 of 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 19634 and 20841 of 2012) )
The Principal Govt. Pre-University College & others Appellants versus Mr. Jambu Kumar Mutha and others Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 11/20/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur and Hon'ble Ms. Justice R. Banumathi  .
Subject Index: Appeal — maintainability of — the High Court was not correct in dismissing RFA No.806 of 2000 summarily as it has done. Whether or not an appeal was maintainable at the instance of someone who was not a party to the suit was itself a matter which ought to have engaged the attention of the High Court. The High Court has not, however, adverted to that aspect and dismissed the appeal simply because the appeal preferred by the State had been dismissed — since an appeal against the very same judgment and decree as was challenged in RFA No.296 of 2011 was already pending before the High Court, the High Court ought to have taken a more pragmatic view of the matter and condoned the delay in filing of the said appeal on such terms as it may it consider it proper — it is no doubt true that the delay in filing of the State appeal was considerable but given the circumstances in which the delay had occurred, court is inclined to condone the same — court allows these appeals, sets aside the orders passed by the High Court, condones the delay in the filing of RFA No.296 of 2011 subject to payment of costs of Rs.50,000/- .

2014 SCCL.COM 554(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 10416-10417 of 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 13942-13943 of 2012))
R. Rajanna Appellant versus S.R. Venkataswamy & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 11/20/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur and Hon'ble Ms. Justice R. Banumathi.
Subject Index: Decree passed on a compromise — can the validity of a decree passed on a compromise be challenged in a separate suit is the short question that falls for determination in this appeal — a party challenging a compromise can file a petition under proviso to Rule 3 of Order XXIII, or an appeal under S. 96(1) of the Code, in which he can now question the validity of the compromise in view of Rule 1-A of Order 13 of the Code — matter remitted to the High Court for disposal in accordance with law.

2014 SCCL.COM 564(Case No: Civil Appeal No.10404 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 3489 of 2012) with Civil Appeal No. 10408 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 9648 of 2013))
D.R. Somayajulu, Secretary D.L.S. & others S.E. Railway House Bldg. Co-Op Society Ltd., Visakhapatnam and another Appellants versus Attili Appala Swamy & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 11/19/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel and Hon'ble Ms. Justice R. Banumathi.
Subject Index: Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 — section 9 — the effect of non-impleading of legal heirs of Attili Narasayyamma on the final statement passed under Section 9 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and vesting of surplus land in the Government — effect of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act 1999 on the land so vested — the impugned order of the High Court passed in Review Petition W.P.M.P. No. 1540/2009 and the order of the Division Bench passed in W.A.No. 1840/2008 dated 2.2.09 are set aside and the matters are remitted back to the High Court for consideration of the Writ Appeal No.1840/2008 afresh in the light of the discussion and the directions contained in paragraph Nos. (34) and (35) — the High Court shall afford an opportunity to all the parties concerned to file additional affidavits and counter affidavits and also to file additional documents, if any, and proceed with the matter in accordance with law.  

2014 SCCL.COM 560(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 1213 of 2006)
K. Srinivas Appellant versus K. Sunita Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 11/19/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikramajit Sen and Hon'ble Mr.Justice Prafulla C. Pant  .
Subject Index: Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — section 13(1)(ia) — dissolution of marriage — claim for — restricted to the ground of cruelty — on account of the filing of a criminal complaint by the Respondent against the Appellant and several members of his family under Sections 498A and 307 of the Indian Penal Code — the Respondent-wife had filed a false criminal complaint, and even one such complaint is sufficient to constitute matrimonial cruelty — court dissolves the marriage of the parties under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

2014 SCCL.COM 559(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 1142 of 2011)
Baljinder Kaur Appellant versus State of Punjab Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 11/19/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur and Hon'ble Ms. Justice R. Banumathi  .
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 304B — conviction under — confirmed by the High Court — appeal — there is no evidence showing any persistent dowry demand or the conduct of the appellant subjecting Sharanjit Kaur to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with dowry. About twenty days prior to the occurrence, when Sharanjit Kaur went to her father’s house, she only generally stated about the dowry demand. She had not specifically stated about the demand of dowry by the appellant — after the alleged demand of gold karra two months after the marriage, Sharanjit Kaur went to her house, again came back to the marital house and again went to her father’s house and again came back to the marital house — the alleged demand of gold karra about two months after the marriage cannot be said to constitute a proximate live link with the death of deceased Sharanjit Kaur and the conviction of the appellant under Section 304B IPC cannot be sustained — even though there is no evidence that the deceased was treated with cruelty or harassment in connection with the demand of dowry “soon before her death” by the appellant evidence on record makes out an offence under Section 498A IPC. So far as the sentence, the occurrence was of the year 1997. The appellant is having three grown up children. The appellant has already undergone sentence for a period of about fifteen months. In the facts and circumstances of the case, for the conviction under Section 498A, she is sentenced to undergo imprisonment already undergone.  

2014 SCCL.COM 558(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 2435 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3345 of 2013))
Jaiminiben Hirenbhai Vyas & another Appellants versus Hirenbhai Rameshchandra Vyas & another Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 11/19/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.A. Bobde.
Subject Index: Maintenance — payment from the date of the order of the application — the circumstances eminently justified grant of maintenance with effect from the date of the application in view of the finding that the Appellant had worked before marriage and had not done so during her marriage. There was no evidence of her income during the period the parties lived as man and wife — the respondent shall pay the amount of maintenance found payable from the date of the application for maintenance.  

2014 SCCL.COM 557(Case No: Criminal Appeal Nos. 2446-2447 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 3527-3528 of 2014))
Rakesh Baban Borhade Appellant versus State of Maharashtra & another Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 11/19/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Gopala Gowda and Hon'ble Ms. Justice R. Banumathi.
Subject Index: Anticipatory bail applications dismissed by High Court — filed by the appellant while granting anticipatory bail to two other persons arrayed as accused in the same case — appeal — it is alleged that inspite of the timely payment of Rs.7,22,12,256/-, the accused persons did not transfer the lands as promised in the MOU — the appellant was directed to deposit a sum of rupees one crore in the Registry of the Supreme Court and in compliance of the said order, the appellant has deposited rupees one crore. Since the transaction is in the nature of commercial transaction and since the appellant has also shown his bonafide by depositing rupees one crore, pending further investigation, anticipatory bail could be granted to the appellant — the appellant shall co-operate with the investigating agency. Without prejudice to the contention of the parties, the complainant — second respondent (M/s.Merit Magnum Construction) is permitted to withdraw rupees one crore deposited by the appellant in this Court.  

2014 SCCL.COM 551(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 10353-10354 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 31173-31174 of 2010))
Sudarshan Rajpoot Appellant versus U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 11/18/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Gopala Gowda and Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Nagappan.
Subject Index: Award — passed by the labour court quashed by the High Court holding that the appellant-workman would be entitled to consolidated damages/compensation equivalent to the retrenchment compensation calculated from the date of his engagement till the date of his disengagement. The Review Application of the Corporation was rejected — on 11-03-97 the appellant was appointed Driver — while driving steering became free due to the iron ball of the tyre being damaged and he lost control over the vehicle. As a result of which the vehicle met with an accident and the appellant-workman broke both his legs — on 10.8.2000, he presented himself for duty with a fitness certificate, when he was told orally that his name was struck off from the rolls of post of driver and has been removed from the services of the Corporation — raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer questioning the correctness of the order of termination — the respondent-Corporation is statutorily obliged under Section 47 of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 to provide alternate equivalent job to the appellant-workman in place of the post of driver — the respondent-Corporation is directed to reinstate the appellant-workman with 50% back-wages from the date of termination till the date of the Award of the Labour Court and further award 100% back-wages from the date of Award of the Labour Court till the date of reinstatement with all consequential reliefs and other monetary benefits including the continuity of service in an alternative equal job with the same pay-scale as that of a driver — the back-wages shall be calculated as per the provisions of pay scales revised to the employees of the respondent-Corporation from time to time — further directed to comply with the order within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this Judgment.  

2014 SCCL.COM 542(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 10129 of 2010)
R.G. D’Souza Appellant versus Poona Employees Uuion & another Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 11/18/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Gopala Gowda and Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Nagappan.
Subject Index: Trade Union — certificate of registration — cancellation — the High Court has rightly affirmed the decision of the Industrial Court, wherein it has rightly set aside the cancellation of Certificate of Registration of the Trade Union holding that it is not legal or valid — no valid or cogent reasons to interfere with the same in exercise of this Court’s Appellate Jurisdiction.  

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