Show the cases, Nominal/Party Name wise
Show the cases, Date of Decision wise
LATEST CASES
(for last one month)
Total No. of Cases: 13

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

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

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

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

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

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

2014 SCCL.COM 382(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 1010 of 2004)
Durga Burman (Roy) Appellants versus State of Sikkim Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 7/31/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph .
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 302, 380 read with section 34 — charge under — appeal by second accused — first accused acquitted — the prosecution has miserably failed in proving the case against the appellant and the appellant is entitled to succeed. The appeal is allowed. The conviction of the appellant under Section 302/380 IPC is set aside.

2014 SCCL.COM 381(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 1587 of 2014)
Bairam Muralidhar Appellant versus State of Andhra Pradesh Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 7/31/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose .
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — section 321 — learned trial Judge had declined to grant permission to withdraw the case pending against the accused-appellant in exercise of the power under — appellant was arrayed as an accused for offences punishable under section 7 and 13 (1) (d) r/w 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — the learned Single Judge has concurred with the view expressed by the Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderbad — view expressed by the learned trial Judge as well as the High Court cannot be found fault with — there is no ground to show that such withdrawal would advance the cause of justice and serve the public interest. That apart, there was no independent application of mind on the part of the learned public prosecutor, possibly thinking that the Court would pass an order on a mere asking. The view expressed in Name Dasarath’s case is not applicable to the case at hand as the two-Judge Bench therein has opined that the law laid down in Sheo Nandan Paswan’s case has not been correctly appreciated by the learned trial Judge and the High Court.

2014 SCCL.COM 379(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 3198 of 2007)
Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee Appellant versus Bannama (D) by LRs. Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 7/25/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal .
Subject Index: Decree and Judgment of the appellate court set aside and judgment and decree of the trial court confirmed — plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title claiming that the property was inherited by her from her father and it was her stridhan property, which is alleged to be standing in the name of the plaintiff since 1954-55 — the plaintiff was an agriculturist and old lady residing at Saidapur village, whereas, respondent no.2 (defendant no.2) was none other than the son of the plaintiff and was vice president of the appellant-first defendant society, which is a statutory body constituted and functioning under the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (Regulation) Act — the plaintiff being an old lady, allowed her son second defendant to look after and manage the suit property on her behalf. It is pleaded that taking advantage of the same, second defendant, without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff, got mutated the suit land in his name on the basis of the release deed — the trial court decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff-Bannamma was the owner and directed delivery of possession of the suit land — it is evident from the record that Nagi Reddy-second defendant died during the pendency of the appeal and his children, who are grandchildren of Bannamma-plaintiff were brought on record as Lrs. of Nagi Reddy — the fact that the first and second defendants were residing together is not sufficient by itself to infer a collusion or a fraud when the revenue records indicated that the property was standing in the name of the plaintiff. In that view of the matter, regular second appeal preferred by the plaintiff is allowed by the High Court — in a case where a transferor never acquired by succession, inheritance or otherwise any interest in the property during his life time then the provision of Section 43 will not come into operation as against the heirs who succeeded the stridhan property of their grandmother.

2014 SCCL.COM 378(Case No: Criminal Appeal No.(s) 1564 of 2014)
Narinder Singh Appellant versus State of Himachal Pradesh Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 7/25/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal .
Subject Index: Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 12 — conviction under — by the High Court setting aside the acquittal — order of acquittal of the Trial Court — appeal by special leave — in the facts and circumstances of the case and seriousness of the offence, supreme court fully agree with the view taken by the High Court.

2014 SCCL.COM 389(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 6697of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 28754 of 2011))
Mahendra Rai..........................Appellant versus United India Ins.Co.Ltd.& another......... Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 7/23/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya & Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.A. Bobde .
Subject Index: Compensation paid by the Insurance Co. — no error in the order passed by the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 — award upheld.

2014 SCCL.COM 373(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 10645 of 2010)
Union of India and others Appellants versus Hitender Kumar Soni Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 7/21/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikramajit Sen and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shiva Kirti Singh .
Subject Index: Reinstatement in Service — the High Court held the Respondent entitled for reinstatement in service to the post of “Investigator”. The Government was directed to decide the admissibility and entitlement of leave, arrears of pay and allowances and other service benefits of Respondent upon his reinstatement after affording full opportunity to the Respondent, of hearing as well as leading evidence — whether relevant clause (4) of the Office Memorandum dated 11.2.1988 takes away the power of the Government to effectively bring to an end the service of an employee by accepting his resignation unless the Government, besides accepting the resignation also proceeds to relieve the employee — as appellants the Union of India and its concerned officials are aggrieved by the judgment and order under appeal dated 11.12.2008 passed by a Division Bench of High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Civil Writ Petition No.41 of 2001 whereby the High Court allowed the Writ Petition preferred by the sole Respondent and set aside the impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal - there may be cases where an employee resigning from service has gone in hiding or is in jail custody etc. The construction placed upon the relevant clauses of the O.M. dated 11.2.1988 by the High Court will render the provisions unworkable, hence such construction needs to be avoided — the word, “relieving” itself must be understood in the ordinary parlance because it is not defined in the O.M. or in the relevant rules as is apparent from the judgment of the High Court. The meaning of the word “relieve” given in the Law Lexicon (2nd Edn. 1997 by P. Ramanatha Aiyar) is — “to free or clear a person from an obligation”. This result manifests itself from the order accepting the resignation because no reservation has been made by the Government that the Respondent has to continue in service till any particular time or till being relieved — in the instant case, there was no obligation on the Government to write a formal letter that the Respondent has been relieved. Even if such requirement had been there, in the case in hand it would be an empty formality. The wholesome writ jurisdiction was not required to be exercised in the facts of the present case keeping in view the conduct of the Respondent in escaping away from his duties without obtaining leave when he was only a temporary employee under probation — no option but to set aside the order and judgment of the High Court under appeal.

2014 SCCL.COM 361(Case No: Civil Appeal No. of 2014 SLP (C) No.26223 of 2013)
G. Mohanasundaram Appellant versus R. Nanthagopal and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 7/21/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya and Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Gopala Gowda .
Subject Index: Selection — to the post of indian Administration service — this appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 8th July, 2013 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Petition No.5508 of 2013. Initially, the appellant herein challenged the Government notifications dated 10th February, 2012 and 13th April, 2012 whereby 1st respondent was promoted and appointed to the Indian Administrative Service, before the Central Administrative Tribunal — by the impugned judgment the High Court set aside the order dated 18th February, 2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal — the High Court failed to appreciate the guidelines dated 4th April, 2007 issued by the State Government with regard to the ACR and wrongly accepted the stand of the respondents that invalid ACRs were not to be considered. The High Court also exceeded its jurisdiction — held to consider the name of the appellant viz-a-viz 1st respondent for promotion to the post of Indian Administrative Service against the vacancies for the year 2009A. If necessary, a fresh Selection Committee or a Review Committee shall be constituted and reconvened.

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