Show the cases, Nominal/Party Name wise
Show the cases, Date of Decision wise
LATEST CASES
(for last one month)
Total No. of Cases: 31

2015 SCCL.COM 19(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 90 of 2015 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) NO. 5382 of 2014))
State of Punjab Appellant versus Bawa Singh Respondent  
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/15/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph .
Subject Index: Sentence — reduction of — this appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment dated 11.11.2013 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Crl. Rev. No. 1789 of 2013 whereby the High Court upheld the conviction of the respondent but reduced the period of sentence to the period already undergone — undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law. It is the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. The sentencing courts are expected to consider all relevant facts and circumstances bearing on the question of sentence and proceed to impose a sentence commensurate with the gravity of the offence. The court must not only keep in view the rights of the victim of the crime but also the society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate punishment. Meagre sentence imposed solely on account of lapse of time without considering the degree of the offence will be counter-productive in the long run and against the interest of the society — the matter is remanded back to the High Court to pass a fresh order in the revision petition taking into consideration the law discussed.  

2015 SCCL.COM 17(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 450 of 2015 (Arising Out of SLP (C) No. 11191 of 2013))
Mahesh Kumar Joshi Appellant versus Madan Singh Negi Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/15/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel.
Subject Index: Exparte decree — setting aside and granting leave to appeal to defend the summary suit —whether the courts below are justified in declining the prayer of the appellant to set aside the ex-parte decree and to grant leave to appeal to defend the summary suit — dealing with the objection of the appellant, the Courts below held that the suit was for recovery on account of dishonour of cheques and was not in respect of the transaction of property. Presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was available. The appellant had failed to enter appearance without any justification in spite of service, there was no ground to set aside the ex parte decree — a debatable issue does arise for consideration and it will be fair and just to give the appellant an opportunity to contest the suit subject to the appellant depositing the entire amount claimed in the suit but without interest or costs, i.e. Rs.3 lacs — setting aside of exparte decree under Order XXXVII Rule 4 of the Code cannot be allowed in routine and special circumstances are required to be established — it will be in the interests of justice that the ex-parte decree is set aside but the interest of the plaintiff is safeguarded by the deposit of the amount in question by the defendant as a condition precedent for setting aside the decree — Supreme Court has not expressed any final opinion on merits and the trial Court will be free to take decision in the matter without being bound by the observations made in this order which are only for deciding this appeal.

2015 SCCL.COM 16(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 91 of 2015 (Arising Out of SLP (Crl) No. 9247 of 2013))
Mansoor Alam Appellant versus State of U.P. & another Respondents  
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/15/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel.
Subject Index: Bail — granting of — appeal — the respondent Moni alias Mohd. Ahmad stands convicted under Section 302/34/120B Indian Penal Code in proceedings arising out of Case Crime No.112 of 2006 under Section 302/384/307/120-B IPC, P.S. Anwarganj, District Kanpur Nagar for causing death of Aftaab Alam on 3rd September, 2006 at 09.30 P.M. by firing bullet from country made pistol — the High Court granted bail taking into account the contention that the deceased sustained two fatal injuries and rest of the injuries were on non-vital parts and also having regard to the period of custody of the respondent — a perusal of the impugned order of the High Court shows that the antecedents of respondent No.2 have not been taken into account — order granting bail, in the facts and circumstances, is not called for. There is no doubt that respondent No.2 appears to have undergone imprisonment for more than eight years, but the contention raised on behalf of the appellant that the respondent has criminal antecedents and direct role in the murder which render the order granting bail vulnerable cannot be brushed aside.  

2015 SCCL.COM 18(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 409-410 of 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 20840-41 of 2014))
Vijaya Ukarda Athor (Athawale) Appellant versus State of Maharashtra and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/14/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Gopala Gowda and Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi .
Subject Index: Compassionate appointment — writ petition and Review application — dismissal — declining to issue direction to consider the case of the appellant for compassionate appointment — the State Government has taken a Policy Decision on 26.02.2013 and held that the married daughters are also entitled for compassionate appointment subject to certain conditions — in Supreme Court's considered view, instead of this Court examining the above questions, the matter is to be remitted back to the High Court for considering the above questions in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case — the matter is remitted back to the High Court for consideration of the matter afresh.

2015 SCCL.COM 15(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 82 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9447 of 2012))
Dilip Kumar Mondal & another Appellants versus State of West Bengal Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/14/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur and Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi .
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 302/34 — conviction under — confirmed by the High Court and conviction under section 326 set aside — appeal — the incident was not premeditated and the scuffle between the parties led to the causing of injuries to the deceased Nripen Debnath and considering the circumstances of the case, in court's view the offence would fall under Section 300 IPC Exception 4 and the conviction of the appellants is to be modified and altered under Section 304 Part I IPC — the conviction of the appellants under Section 302/34 IPC is altered to one under Section 304 Part I IPC and the appellants are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of ten years. The appeal stands allowed to the above extent.

2015 SCCL.COM 14(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 415 of 2015 (arising out of SLP(C) No.21799 of 2014))
Sunil Appellant versus Sakshi @ Shweta & another Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/14/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya and Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana .
Subject Index: Decree of divorce — passed by the Family Court Belgaum set aside by the 'Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench — appeal by the husband — it cannot be presumed that the Family Court in its order dated 17th September, 2012 wrongly noted the presence of the appellant-husband and the 1st respondent-wife. In fact, this part of the order sheet has not been referred by the High Court while coming to a conclusion that the appellant-husband has played fraud upon the Family Court as to get a decree of divorce in his favour. Merely, because of the fact that print out of the case papers of both the parties have been taken from one and the same computer software it cannot be presumed that blank Vakalatnama signed by the 1st respondent-wife was misused by the appellant-husband or he played fraud and used the same to engage some other senior counsel. Such finding of the High Court is not based on evidence but on mere presumption and conjecture — Supreme Court has no other option but to set aside the impugned judgment dated 9th July, 2014 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench in M.F.A. No.22031/2013(FC). It is accordingly set aside. The appeal is allowed.

2015 SCCL.COM 13(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 354-355 of 2015 (Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 7939-7940 of 2004))
Assistant Commissioner, Ernakulam Petitioner versus Hindustan Urban Infrastructure Ltd. and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/13/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble the Chief Justice H.L. Dattu and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.A. Bobde .
Subject Index: Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 — section 2 (viii) — whether an “Official Liquidator” is a “dealer” within the meaning of section 2 (viii) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and therefore would be required to collect sales tax in respect of the sales effected by him pursuant to winding up proceedings of a company in liquidation — held the Official Liquidator would be required to pay the tax payable on the sale of the assets of the company in liquidation.  

2015 SCCL.COM 12(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 347 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP(C) NO. 976 of 2014))
Kanhsingh & another Appellants versus Tukaram & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/13/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.Gopala Gowda and Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Nagappan .
Subject Index: Compensation — enhancement — in motor accident — the total compensation payable to the appellants by the respondent-Insurance Company will be Rs. 24,25,604/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the application till the date of payment to the appellants — appeal allowed.  

2015 SCCL.COM 11(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 348-349 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 4897-4898 of 2014))
Smt. Neeta w/o Kallappa Kadolkar & others Appellants versus The Div. Manager, MSRTC, Kolhapur Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/13/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.Gopala Gowda and Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.Nagappan .
Subject Index: Compensation — enhancement of — appeal against the judgment of Karnataka High Court circuit Bench at Dharwad — the Tribunal, by its common judgment and order dated 06.02.2012, awarded compensation amounting to Rs.7,68,000/- and Rs.7,88,000/- respectively, with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. by taking the monthly income of both the deceased at Rs.4,500/- p.m. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants filed the appeals before the High Court. The High Court party allowed the appeals of the appellants by re-assessing the monthly income of both the deceased at Rs.6000/- p.m. and it deducted 1/4th of the income towards personal expenses — the multiplier of 16 was taken to compute the compensation as both the deceased were aged about 33 years and awarded the compensation of Rs.9,09,000/- each, in both the cases to the claimants, with 8% interest p.a. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the High Court to them, these appeals are filed by the appellants before this Court — held the total compensation payable to the claimants of the deceased Kallappa and Vijay, by the respondent-Transport Corporation will be Rs.21,53,000/- and Rs.23,03,000/- respectively, with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the application till the date of payment — the compensation awarded shall be apportioned amongst the appellants on the enhanced compensation in terms of the award passed by the Tribunal.  

2015 SCCL.COM 10(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 346 of 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 1532 of 2014))
Jasmer Singh Appellant versus State of Haryana & another Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/13/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.Gopala Gowda and Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Nagappan .
Subject Index: Award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court set aside by the order of the learned single Judge — appeal filed by the workman — question of law raised — the appellant-workman was working as daily paid worker in the office of Sub Divisional Officer/Engineer since 1.1.1993 and remained in service upto December, 1993. He had completed more than 240 days of continuous service in one calendar year. His services were terminated on 31.12.1993 without complying with the mandatory provisions of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — the respondent-management neither issued notice nor notice pay nor retrenchment compensation was given to him. The principle of 'last come first go' was not followed as provided under Section 25G of the Act and the persons who were juniors to him in service were retained — the appeal is allowed, the judgment & order passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.P. No. 9532/2001 which is affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court in L.P.A. No. 2245/2011 in its judgment and order are set aside and the Award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court is restored. The respondent-employer is directed to comply with the Award within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and send a report to this Court. The appeal is allowed with cost of Rs.25,000/- payable to the appellant-workman by the respondent employer.

2015 SCCL.COM 27(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 297-298 of 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.13121-13122 of 2011) with Civil Appeal Nos. 299-300 of 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.11597-11598 of 2011) Civil Appeal NO. 301 of 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.11606 of 2011) Civil Appeal Nos. 302-303 of 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.13123-13124 of 2011) Civil Appeal Nos. 304-305 of 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.13126-13127 of 2011) and CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 306-307 of 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.13130-13131 of 2011))
Sudhir N. & others Appellants versus State of Kerala & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/12/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur and Hon'ble Ms. Justice R. Banumathi .
Subject Index: Kerala Medical Officers Admission to Postgraduate courses under service quota Act, 2008 — section 5(4) — these appeals arise out of a judgment and order dated 30th March 2011 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Writ Petitions No.1014 of 2009 and 2610 of 2010 filed by the respondents whereby the High Court has allowed the said petitions with the direction that selection of in-service medical officers for post-graduate medical education under Section 5(4) of the Kerala Medical Officers’ Admission to Postgraduate Courses under Service Quota Act, 2008 shall be made strictly on the basis of inter — se seniority of the candidates who have taken the common entrance test for post-graduate medical education and have obtained the minimum eligibility bench mark in that test in terms of the Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India — regulation 9 remains as the only effective and permissible basis for granting admission to in-service candidates provisions of Section 5(4) of the impugned enactment notwithstanding — admissions can and ought to be made only on the basis of inter — se merit of the candidates determined in terms of the said principle which gives no weightage to seniority simplicitor.

2015 SCCL.COM 28(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 193 of 2015 [Arising out of Slp (Civil) No. 32039 of 2012])
M/s. Kailash Nath Associates Appellant versus Delhi Development Authority & another Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/9/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Jutice Ranjan Gogoi and Hon'ble Mr. Jutice R.F. Nariman .
Subject Index: Delhi Development Authority — Public Auction — earnest money — refund — present appeal arises out of a public auction conducted by the Delhi Development Authority wherein the appellant made the highest bid for Plot No.2-A, Bhikaji Cama Place — for 3.12 Crores. As per the terms and conditions of the auction, the appellant, being the highest bidder, deposited a sum of Rs.78,00,000/- being 25% of the bid amount, with the DDA, this being earnest money under the terms of the conditions of auction — in case of default, breach or non-compliance of any of the terms and conditions of the auction or mis -representation by the bidder and/or intending purchaser, the earnest money shall be forfeited — on 18.2.1982, the DDA acknowledged the receipt of Rs.78,00,000/- accepted the appellant’s bid and directed the appellant to deposit the remaining 75% by 17.5.1982. However, as there was a general recession in the industry, the appellant and persons similarly placed made representations sometime in May, 1982 for extending the time for payment of the remaining amount. The DDA set up a High Powered Committee to look into these representations. The High Powered Committee on 21.7.1982 recommended granting the extension of time to bidders for depositing the remaining amount of 75% — the Division Bench has gone wrong in principle — there has been no breach of contract by the appellant. Further, court cannot accept the view of the Division Bench that the fact that the DDA made a profit from re-auction is irrelevant, as that would fly in the face of the most basic principle on the award of damages – namely, that compensation can only be given for damage or loss suffered. If damage or loss is not suffered, the law does not provide for a windfall — court is not able to agree as others were offered the refund of earnest money way back in 1989 with 7% per annum interest which they accepted. The DDA having chosen to fight the present appellant tooth and nail even on refund of earnest money, when there was no breach of contract or loss caused to it, stands on a different footing — the judgment and order of the Single Judge is restored.

2015 SCCL.COM 26(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 2701 of 2006)
Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Limited Appellant versus B.P.L. Limited Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/9/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra .
Subject Index: Companies Act, 1956 — sections 138 and 139 — secured creditors — the appellant shall remain as a secured creditor, for it was registered as such under the Registrar of Companies. The formalities for creating the charge having duly followed, the Division Bench has referred to the Form No. 8 and 13 and also adverted to the power of Registrar to make entries of satisfaction and release, as provided under Sections 138 and 139 of the Act. It has also expressed the view that in the absence of any proceeding, the status of the company as a secured creditor continues — after registration of the deed of hypothecation, if a condition subsequent is not satisfied, that would be in a different realm altogether. In any case, the finding has been recorded that the respondent was not at fault and, in any case, that would not change the status of the appellant as a secured creditor — the appellant cannot be treated as an unsecured creditor and it is not permissible for him to put forth a stand that it would not be bound by the Scheme that has been approved by the learned Company Judge.

2015 SCCL.COM 25(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 1889, 1904 and 1938 of 2008 and Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2009)
Ahmed Shah & another Appellants versus State of Rajasthan and others Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/9/2015.
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 302 and 149 — conviction under — appeal — Jodhpur Bench of Rajasthan High Court confirmed the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 and also the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on them with a fine of Rs.1,000/-. The High Court acquitted eighteen other accused of the charges under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and convicted them under Section 148 IPC and sentenced those eighteen accused persons to the period already undergone by them — complainant party went to the field and Sabbir Shah was armed with gun. In the sudden fight, there was a scuffle. During the course of scuffle, the appellants inflicted injuries on the deceased Sabbir Shah. The accused tried to grapple the gun from Sabbir Shah. There was no premeditation and that the incident was the result of sudden fight. In the scuffle, other accused inflicted injuries on Rakhu Shah and PW-8 Rakhia — considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the present case cannot be said to be a case punishable under Section 302 IPC but a case falling under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. Since the appellants inflicted injuries on the neck and scalp of Sabbir Shah with the intention of causing death and the act of the accused-appellants is punishable under Section 304 Part I IPC — the conviction of the appellants Ahmed Shah and Gurmukh Singh under Sections 302/34 IPC is modified as conviction under Section 304 Part I IPC and the substantive sentence of life imprisonment is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by them and the appeal preferred by the accused appellants is partly allowed.  

2015 SCCL.COM 22(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2015 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 2961 of 2013) with Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 2015 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 3161 of 2013) and Criminal Appeal Nos. 36-37 of 2015 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 3326-3327 of 2013))
Sunil Bharti Mittal Appellant versus Central Bureau of Investigation Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/9/2015.
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: Summoning and implicating the appellants as accused persons — an opinion is to be formed only after due application of mind that there is sufficient basis for proceeding against the said accused and formation of such an opinion is to be stated in the order itself — order is liable to be set aside if no reason is given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is prima facie case against accused, though the order need not contain detailed reasons. Afortiori, the order would be bad in law if the reason given turns out to be ex facie incorrect — there has to be a proper satisfaction in this behalf which should be duly recorded by the Special Judge on the basis of material on record. No such exercise is done. In this scenario, having regard to the aforesaid aspects coupled with the legal position explained above, it is difficult to sustain the impugned order dated 19.03.2013 in its present form insofar as it relates to implicating the appellants and summoning them as accused persons. The appeals arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2961 of 2013 and SLP (Crl.) No. 3161 of 2013 filed by Mr. Sunil Bharti Mittal and Ravi Ruia respectively are, accordingly, allowed and order summoning these appellants is set aside — on an erroneous presumption in law, the Special Magistrate has issued the summons to the appellants, it will always be open to the Special Magistrate to undertake the exercise of going through the material on record and on that basis, if he is satisfied that there is enough incriminating material on record to proceed against the appellants as well, he may pass appropriate orders in this behalf — no such prima facie material is found, but during the trial, sufficient incriminating material against these appellants surfaces in the form of evidence, the Special Judge shall be at liberty to exercise his powers under Section 319 of the Code to rope in the appellants by passing appropriate orders in accordance with law at that stage.

2015 SCCL.COM 20(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 209 of 2015 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4385 of 2010) with Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 320 of 2010 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 5046 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 210 of 2015 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4483 of 2010) with Civil Appeal No. 211 of 2015 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 5046 of 2010) with Civil Appeal No. 212 of 2015 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6002 of 2010) and Civil Appeal No. 213 of 2015 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6125 of 2010)  )
Chairman & Managing Director Central Bank of India & others Appellants versus Central Bank of India SC/ST Employees Welfare Association & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/9/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri.
Subject Index: Rule of reservation — of the Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) in the promotion in the officer grade/scale in the appellant Banks — the appellant Banks which are statutory/public sector banks, are following the applicable guidelines of the Central Government pertaining to reservation of SC and ST employees insofar as their promotion from clerical grade to officer grade is concerned. The question to be answered is as to whether there is any reservation in the promotions from one officer grade/scale to another grade/scale, when such promotions are made on selection basis — the appellant Banks to carry out the promotions by adopting the procedure mentioned in this judgment.

2015 SCCL.COM 31(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 513 of 2008)
Darga Ram @ Gunga Appellant versus State of Rajasthan Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/8/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur and Hon'ble Ms. Justice R. Banumathi .
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 376 and 302 — trial and conviction under — for the offence of rape punishable under Section 376, he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 10 years besides a fine of Rs.1000/- — for the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment besides a fine of Rs.3,000/- — court has persuaded itself to go by the age estimate given by the Medical Board and to declare the appellant to be a juvenile as on the date of the occurrence no matter the offence committed by him is heinous and but for the protection available to him under the Act the appellant may have deserved the severest punishment permissible under law. The fact that the appellant has been in jail for nearly 14 years is the only cold comfort for the court to let out of jail one who has been found guilty of rape and murder of an innocent young child — this appeal succeeds but only in part and to the extent that while the conviction of the appellant for offences under Section 302 and 376 of IPC is affirmed the sentence awarded to him shall stand set aside with a direction that the appellant shall be set free from prison unless required in connection with any other case.

2015 SCCL.COM 24(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 1401 of 2008)
Vinod Kumar Appellant versus State of Haryana Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/8/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra and Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana .
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 363/109/364-A — charges under — acquittal by trial court — conviction and order of sentence by High Court — the accused-appellant, Vinod Kumar, a resident of Bijwasan, had come to the village of PW-1 in the month of May, 1996 and worked as a domestic help in the house of Jagbir Singh. Jagbir Singh had four children and he had employed two servants one of whom was the present appellant. After working for four months in the house of Jagbir Singh, Vinod Kumar, as the prosecution story unfurls, kidnapped Anand, the 3 ½ year old son of Jagbir Singh and Smt. Santosh, PW-2, on 24.09.1996. He was seen along with Anand by Harpal, PW-3, who had enquired from Vinod Kumar where he was proceeding with the child to which the reply was that he had to purchase shoes for Anand and medicine for himself from Jind — it is also important that kidnapped boy was recovered at railway station. The accused has not explained how the child could be brought to Delhi. Harpal has categorically deposed that he had seen Anand with Vinod Kumar. The learned trial Judge has noted certain discrepancies in the evidence of Harpal, but without any justifiable reason — the learned trial Judge has really niggled on unimportant and unnecessary details. It is quite natural on the part of Harpal to pose a question to Vinod Kumar as he was slightly anxious to see a domestic help taking a child. This is inherent in human nature and, therefore, the version of Harpal could not have been ignored. These aspects, in court's view weigh quite heavily against the accused — the judgment of reversal by the High Court is absolutely defensible and does not warrant any interference.  

2015 SCCL.COM 30(Case No: Transfer Case (Civil) No. 48 of 2010 with T.C.(C)No.7 of 2011, T.C.(C)No.45 of 2010 T.C.(C)No.47 of 2010,T.C.(C)No.46 of 2010 T.C.(C)No.6 of 2011,T.C.(C)No.19 of 2011, T.C.(C)No.23 of 2011,T.C.(C)No.20 of 2011, T.C.(C)No.21 of 2011 SLP(C)No.10903 of 2011, T.C.(C)No.82 of 2011,T.C.(C)No.83 of 2011 T.C.(C)No.49 of 2010, T.C.(C)No.27 of 2014 & T.C.(C)No.28 of 2014)
Manojbhai N. Shah & others Petitioners versus Union of India & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/7/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shiva Kirti Singh .
Subject Index: Retiral benefits to be given to a special class of retired employees of five nationalized general insurance companies — the insurance companies, who have been described hereinafter as “the Employers” were in financial difficulties and so as to cut their expenditure, the Employers framed a scheme named “General Insurance Employees Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2004” — so as to enable its employees to retire prematurely on certain conditions with some special benefits — normally a person gets pension when he retires from service after putting in the period of pensionable service as per his service conditions. All the employees, in the instant case, would be eligible to get pension if they retire from service after putting in 20 years of service — an Employer can fix salary for its employees and supreme court does not agree with the submission that the Notification was not issued properly or legally — the employees who had opted for retirement under the Scheme would not be entitled to additional pension upon revision of pay effected under the Notification dated 21st December, 2005 — all judgments directing the Employers to make additional payment of pension to the employees retiring under the Scheme are set aside and, accordingly, all the transferred cases are finally disposed of.

2015 SCCL.COM 29(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 2371 of 2010)
Raghuvendra Appellant versus State of M.P. Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/7/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur and Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana .
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 302 read with section 34 — conviction under — appeal — dismissed — the fact that the deceased was ‘last seen’ with Raghuvendra and his dead body was found soon thereafter coupled with the fact that certain articles belonging to the deceased were recovered from the custody of Raghuvendra and his uncle at their instance leaves no room for doubt that the three of them were travelling together — that the death of Bhagwan Singh was caused by Raghuvendra and his uncle. No other inference is possible or even suggested — no substantial question of law has arisen in this case and on the facts as found by the learned Additional Sessions Judge as well as by the High Court Supreme Court does not reason to interfere with the conviction of Raghuvendra for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

2015 SCCL.COM 9(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 5989 of 2007)
Nargis Jal Haradhvala Appellant versus State of Maharashtra and others Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/6/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre .
Subject Index: Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 — section 20 — applied for exemption — in respect of land bearing CTS No.1310 of village Versova in Andheri Taluka of Mumbai Suburban District, measuring 5892.5 sq.mt. out of which exemption in respect of 3491.5 sq.mt. was granted by Respondent No.1 in August, 1987. The balance 2401 sq.mt. did not need exemption being reserved for road and garden and was duly handed over to the Municipal Corporation by the appellant. 500 sq.mt. was “retainable land” that the landowner is entitled to retain. Exemption order tentatively specified 30% of the permissible floor space of the exempted land to be sold to Government Nominees. It was clarified that the percentage will be prescribed by the Government as per the extent of the land to be exempted — the appellant is bound to surrender to the Government a total 20% of the permissible floor space in the light of the corrigendum dated 23.11.1990 issued by the Government — the appellant has given only seven flats to the allottees nominated by the Government. Calculating 20% of the floor space, the appellant is bound to sell 11 more flats to the persons that may be nominated by the Government — the remaining eleven flats that shall be handed over by the appellant to the Government shall be sold to the Government nominees, who must belong to the weaker section of the society.

2015 SCCL.COM 8(Case No: Criminal Appeal Nos. 493-495 of 2009 with Criminal Appeal Nos.1238 of 2009; 1239 of 2009; 1241 of 2009; 1194 of 2011; and 1892 of 2011)
Inder Singh & others Appellants versus State of Rajasthan Respondent  
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/6/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shiva Kirti Singh.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 302/149 307/149 147 and 148 — 21 persons have been convicted under — accused nos. 1, 2 and 3 have also been convicted for offences under section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 — the occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 10th September 2001 at 06:45 p.m. in Village Dhodi — there were 29 accused persons named in the FIR, all residents of Village Dhodi — since the accused persons and the 6 material eye witnesses in this case are co-villagers, it is expected that at least three witnesses should be in a position to name individual accused persons for sustaining his conviction — the appeals preferred by the five appellants, namely, Bhagwan Singh, son of Prabhu Lal (appellant no.3 in Crl. Appeal No.1239 of 2009); Suresh Kumar, son of Ram Dhakad (appellant no.3 in Crl. Appeal No.493 of 2009); Kanhi Ram, son of Prabhu Lal (appellant no.4 in Crl. Appeal No.1239 of 2009); Prahlad Singh, son of Nathu Lal (sole appellant in Crl. Appeal No.1241 of 2009); and Ram Prasad, son of Bheru Lal (appellant no.4 in Crl. Appeal No.493 of 2009) are allowed. They are granted benefit of doubt and acquitted of all the charges. The appeals of remaining 16 appellants are dismissed. If on bail, their bail bonds shall stand cancelled and they shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the remaining sentence in accordance with law.

2015 SCCL.COM 7(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 5983 of 2007)
Union of India & another Appellants versus S.N. Maity & another Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/6/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra and Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Gopala Gowda .
Subject Index: Central Administration Tribunal order — overturned by the D.B. of High Court — justifiability and soundness of the judgment is called in question — there is no rule or regulation that he will get the equivalent pay scale in his parent department. The normal rule relating to pay scale has to apply to avoid any kind of piquant and uncalled for situation.

2015 SCCL.COM 6(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 51 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.22775 of 2012))
M/s Swati Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Appellant versus Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (IDCO) & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/6/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya and Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Gopala Gowda .
Subject Index: Land dispute — writ application full of disputed facts — matter involves disputed question of fact. Despite the same, prima facie it appears that neither original borrower nor the present appellant does any business in the land in question, except for taking loan against the land. In this background while supreme court upheld the impugned judgment dated 18th April, 2012 passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in WP(C) No.16790 of 2008, supreme court is of the opinion that the respondent-IDCO should inquire into the matter to find out as to whether the land is properly used by one or other party for the purpose it was open or by opening different firms or companies in different names in same premises, they are availing loan mortgaging the same very land. For such inquiry the respondent- IDCO will issue notice to the 2nd respondent-Orissa State Financial Corporation, appellant-M/s Swati Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd., M/s Eastern Fan and any other party who may be interested. On such enquiry it will be open for the competent authority to pass an appropriate order.  

2015 SCCL.COM 3(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 1240 of 2005)
Phool Patti and another Appellants versus Ram Singh (Dead) Through Lrs. & another Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/6/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur and Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Nagappan .
Subject Index: A) Gift — locus standi to challenge — there was no pleading to this effect, no issue was framed in this regard in the suit filed by Phool Patti and Phool Devi, nor was any evidence led to challenge the validity of the gift. It is too late in the day for them to question the validity of the gift in favour of Ram Singh for the first time in this court without any foundation, factual or otherwise, having been laid for a decision on this issue. B) Family settlement not on record — the terms of the family settlement are not on record — the family settlement could relate to the ancestral as well as self-acquired property of Bhagwana or only the ancestral property. It appears that it related only to the ancestral property and not the self-acquired property. The decree relating to 32 kanals of land did not require compulsory registration — the self acquired property of Bhagwana that is 20 kanals, therefore, in view of the law laid down in Bhoop Singh the gift of 20 kanals of land by Bhagwana in favour of Ram Singh, notwithstanding the decree in the first suit, requires compulsory registration since it created, for the first time, right, title or interest in immovable property of a value greater than Rs.100/- in favour of Ram Singh — the appeal is partly allowed.

2015 SCCL.COM 23(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 2015 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.7067 of 2014])
K.K. Kuda Appellant versus Chief Enforcement Officer, Enforcement Directorate & another Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/6/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Gopala Gowda and Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.Nagappan .
Subject Index: Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 — section 56 — petition under — seeking to quash the complaint filed — High Court dismissed the petition — appeal — the first respondent herein issued Show Cause Notice dated 21.01.1994 under Section 51 of FERA, 1973 against ANZ Grindlays Bank, the Account Holder and three bank officials for having credited Non-convertible Rupee Funds of Rs.1,15,00,000/- — during the period August to December, 1991 received from Moscow, into the Non-Resident (External) Account of Dr. P.K. Ramakrishnan in contravention of Section 6(4), 6(5) read with Section 49 of FERA, alleging that it had taken place with the consent, connivance of and attributable to the negligence on the part of the said Officials — by letter dated 10.7.2001 addressed to the appellant, the respondent ordered that charges relating to ‘consent’ and ‘connivance’ shall stand deleted from the Show Cause Notice dated 21.01.1994 — the High Court by the impugned order held that the prosecution of the accused persons shall be confined to the negligence on their part and not for they having consented or connived in the commission of the said offence. The said order is under challenge — though the allegation of negligence can be independently looked into, considering the standard of proof in criminal prosecution, supreme court of the view that, in the present case, the continuance of prosecution against the appellant is not tenable in law and the proceedings are liable to be quashed.

2015 SCCL.COM 21(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 50 of 2015 (arising out of SLP(C) No.1707 of 2014))
Union of India Through Secretary & others Appellants versus Anju Jain & another Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/6/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prafulla C. Pant .
Subject Index: Replacement of Pay Scale — the respondents were appointed as Junior Machine Operator/Key Punch Operator w.e.f. 05.05.1987 and 19.05.1987 respectively on temporary basis in the pay scale of Rs.950-20-1150-EB-25-1500. Subsequently, their services were regularised w.e.f. 19.05.1989 — in view of the Government of India O.M. dated 11th September, 1989 the posts of Junior Machine Operators/Key Punch Operators were re-designated as Data Entry Operator Grade ‘B’ in the pay scale of Rs.1150-1500 w.e.f. 01.01.1986. Therefore, respondent nos.1 and 2 became entitled to receive salary in the pay scale of Rs.1150-1500 with effect from their date of initial appointment i.e. 05.05.1987 and 19.05.1987 respectively — the respondents though hold the posts of Computor they were entitled to the pay scale of Rs.1150-1500 w.e.f. 27.07.1995 — no interference is called for against the impugned judgment dated 01st August, 2013 passed by the High Court and the order passed by the Tribunal as the High Court rightly held that the respondents to be treated as Data Entry Operator Grade ‘A’ in the pay scale of Rs.1150-1500 from the date of their initial appointment and subsequent replacement of pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 from the date the pay scale was so revised.

2015 SCCL.COM 1(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2015 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.32616 of 2013])
M/s. Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd. Appellant versus Krishna Kant Pandey Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/6/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shiva Kirti Singh  .
Subject Index: Workman — this appeal by special leave is directed against judgment and order dated 23.5.2013 of the High Court of Allahabad at Lucknow Bench whereby learned Single Judge classifying the respondent as ‘workman’ allowed the writ petition preferred by him, quashed the order dated August 24, 2007 passed by the Industrial Tribunal II, State of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and directed the Tribunal to decide respondent’s Case No.84/2004 on merit — the respondent was appointed on the post of Operator/Technician Grade III for six months on probation basis w.e.f. 13th of March, 1995 against the salary of Rs. 2600/- per month — the order of the Tribunal would show that the respondent-workman accepted different works assigned to him which were purely of supervisory and managerial nature. The details of 15 managerial/supervisory works assigned to the respondent have been analyzed by the Tribunal which finally came to the conclusion that the respondent is not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(z) of the Act — the High Court committed grave error in holding that although he is not covered under the definition of workman as defined under Section 2(z) of the Act he shall be classified as a workman. The High Court further exceeded its jurisdiction in advising the Government to make an amendment in Section 2(z) of the Act and to exclude some clauses. The order passed by the High Court cannot be sustained in law — liberty is given to the respondent to move the appropriate forum to challenge the order of termination passed by the appellant.

2015 SCCL.COM 5(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 7133 of 2008)
Union of India & another Appellants versus Purushottam Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/5/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikramajit Sen and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shiva Kirti Singh .
Subject Index:  Army Act, 1950 — section 53(a) — the Respondent was arraigned on two counts for the two respective acts and charged with committing extortion, under Section 53(a) of the Army Act, 1950. Summary of Evidence was recorded under Rule 23, Army Rules and the Respondent was tried by Summary Court Martial (SCM), headed by Lt. Col CM Kumar, Officer Commanding, (OC) on 11.04.2002. The Respondent pleaded guilty to both charges. At the hearing of the SCM, two prosecution witnesses were examined, both of whom the Respondent declined to cross-examine. The Respondent neither made any statement in his defence, nor did he produce any defence witnesses. He was ultimately awarded the sentence of a reduction in rank to that of “Naik”. Thereafter, for reasons recondite, the ‘reviewing authority’ purportedly acting under Section 162 of the Act, while ‘reviewing’ the SCM, set aside the same, “due to incorrect framing of charge and lackadaisical recording of evidence at the summary of evidence” — though there was incongruity between the Deputy Judge-Advocate General (acting as the Reviewing Authority) and the Summary Court Martial, resulting in a nugatory Court Martial process, a perusal of the Act, as well as the facts on record, will reveal that this need not have been. A Summary Court Martial does not require for its efficacy, finality and validity, the confirmation of the Confirming Authority, as has been mandated for the other three classes of Court Martial, enumerated in Section 153 — the Reviewing Authority could not have set aside the proceedings on such a technical ground - which Section 162 expressly prohibits - that a plea of “not guilty” should have been recorded under Army Rule 116(4) in respect of both charges of extortion, as the effect of the Respondent’s plea of “guilty” was not fully understood by him. The Court Martial finding and sentence ought to have been left undisturbed by the Reviewing Authority, self-sufficiently valid as it was under Section 161 (1). The Army Act and the Rules framed thereunder specifically contemplate that any person other than an officer subject to the Act may be dismissed or removed from service under Section 20 of the Act; and any such person may be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank under Section 20 read with Rule 17. The High Court has not failed to appreciate this dichotomy inasmuch as it has not precluded the taking of departmental action. The difference is that the departmental action is exactly what was taken and additionally what has now been permitted by the Impugned Judgment to be initiated — the supreme court dispose of the Appeal by restoring the order of the Summary Court Martial, yet not prohibiting the Appellants to proceed in accordance with law.

2015 SCCL.COM 4(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2015 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 921 of 2014])
Om Prakash (DEAD) th. His Lrs. Appellant versus Shanti Devi & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/5/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave, Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikramajit Sen .
Subject Index: Suit for mandatory injunction — decreed against the appellant — to hand over vacant possession of the property in dispute, on the predication that the Respondent was the owner of that property — appellant has been successively unsuccessful in the three Courts below — outlining the facts briefly, the Respondent-Plaintiff’s case before the Trial Court was that he was the owner-allottee of the property and had parted with possession of the property to the Appellant on a nominal licence basis. The parties are closely related to each other – being brothers-in-law since the Appellant/Defendant was the husband of the Plaintiff’s sister. The Plaintiff pleaded that it had been agreed between them that as and when required by the Plaintiff the Appellant would vacate the property. However, despite the Plaintiff’s repeated requests the Appellant did not accede thereto; accordingly, the aforesaid suit came to be filed — Whilst admitting that he had initially been a licencee of the Respondent, the Appellant pleaded in his Written Statement that on 15.05.1970 the Respondent had executed a Gift Deed in his favour, thereby making him the owner of the property. The Appellant/Defendant also claimed that the Gift Deed had been registered in and by the Office of the Sub Registrar, Patiala, on 18.05.1970. In Replication, the Respondent-Plaintiff has denied execution of the Gift Deed — since the Gift Deed in question was tendered in evidence five months prior to having become thirty years old, the Appeal is devoid of merits. The Appellant did not even attempt to prove the Gift Deed in any manner known in law.

2015 SCCL.COM 2(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 3655 of 2010)
Diwan Singh Appellant versus Life Insurance Corporation of India and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/5/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikramajit Sen and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prafulla C. Pant .
Subject Index: Removal from service — punishment substituted by compulsory retirement — appeal is directed against judgment and order passed by Allahabad High Court — the appellant was a cashier with Life Insurance Corporation of India and posted at Bilaspur, District Rampur in U.P. A policy holder, Bhograj Singh, deposited with the appellant an amount of Rs.533/- towards half yearly insurance premium on 13.8.1990 but the same was not deposited with LIC nor credited in the account of the policy holder till 27.11.1990, though a receipt was issued on 13.8.1990 by the appellant. It appears that when the LIC agent did not get his commission out of the premium deposited, and made enquiries in this regard, amount of Rs.533/- was shown deposited by the appellant with late fee of Rs.15.90/-, and entry was made in the cash register on 28.11.1990. Also, a forged entry was made in ledger sheet on back date — a charge-sheet was served on him on 29.4.1991 — On conclusion of the departmental enquiry, the appellant was found guilty, and served with copy of enquiry report, whereafter he was removed from service — the Division Bench, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the appellant appears to have committed the forgery to cover his mistake, and partly allowed the appeal — the amount misappropriated may be small or large; it is the act of misappropriation that is relevant —supreme court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court.  

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