2012 SCCL.COM 56(Case No: Civil Appeal No(s). 1193 of 2012)
Dr. Subramanian Swamy Appellant(s) versus Dr. Manmohan Singh & Another Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/31/2012.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.
Subject Index: Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — whether a complaint can be filed by a citizen for prosecuting a public servant for an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — whether the High Court was justified in refusing to entertain the writ petition filed by the appellant — to consider — illegal grant of licences at the behest of Mr. A. Raja - respondent No. 2 — the appellant filed Civil Writ Petition for issue of a mandamus to respondent No.1 to pass an order for grant of sanction for prosecution of respondent No. 2 — the High Court dismissed the petition holding that when the matter is being investigated by the CBI, and the investigation is in progress, it would not be in fitness of things to issue a mandamus to the first respondent to take a decision on the application of the petitioner — hence, the appeal — no provision either in the 1988 Act or the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which bars a citizen from filing a complaint for prosecution of a public servant who is alleged to have committed an offence — the Supreme Court held that while considering the issue regarding grant or refusal of sanction, the only thing which the Competent Authority is required to see is whether the material placed by the complainant or the investigating agency prima facie discloses commission of an offence — the material placed on record does not show that the CBI had registered a case or started investigation at the instance of respondent No.1. Even though the appellant repeatedly wrote letters to respondent No.1 highlighting the seriousness of the allegations and supplied the facts and documents which could be made basis for grant of sanction to prosecute respondent No.2, the concerned officers in the PMO kept the matter pending and then took the shelter of the fact that the CBI had registered the case and the investigation was pending — impugned order set aside however, keeping in view the fact that the Court of Special Judge, CBI already took cognizance of the offences allegedly committed by respondent No.2 under the 1988 Act, no other direction issued — appeal allowed.

2012 SCCL.COM 51(Case No: Criminal Appeal No(s). 11 of 2006)
Sharad Appellant(s) versus The State of Maharashtra Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/31/2012.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 304-B, 306, 498-A — dowry death — conviction and sentence of the appellant for commission of the offence under — on account of the harassment and cruelty at the hands of her husband in connection with the demand for the unpaid amount of the dowry that was promised by her father, the victim committed suicide by setting alight after dousing herself in kerosene oil — the victim died from burn injuries within two and a half year of her marriage with the appellant and also established that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellant in connection with the demand for the unpaid amount of the dowry. Apart from the post-mortem report there is sufficient evidence on record to show that victim set herself on fire committing suicide and she did not catch fire accidently — appeal dismissed.

2012 SCCL.COM 50(Case No: Civil Appeal No(s). 7170-7174 of 2005)
S.M. Sharmila Appellant(s) versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/31/2012.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave.
Subject Index: Workmen Compensation — claim filed for — the appellant's workmen was injured in an accident while they were travelling in a vehicle owned by the appellant — the High Court reversed the findings of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and concluded that the vehicle involved in the accident was not insured with National Insurance Company Ltd. on the date of the accident and, therefore, the Insurance Company was absolved from its liability to make payment of compensation to the respondent workmen and the appellant, owner of the vehicle, was saddled with the liability of paying compensation to the respondent workmen — no interference in the order passed by the High Court — appeals dismissed.

2012 SCCL.COM 52(Case No: Criminal Appeal No(s). 234-235 of 2012 with Crl.A. No. 236 of 2012)
Kannan Appellant(s) versus Selvamuthukani Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/30/2012.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam and Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 494, 494 r/w section 109 — conviction and sentence under — in challenge — the respondent filed complaint contending that during the subsistence of her marriage with A1, A1 married A4 and by actively assisting and participating in the said marriage ceremony, the other accused abetted the commission of said offence — the trial Court convicted all the accused while, the High Court reduced the sentence awarded to A1 to rigorous imprisonment for one year. Sentence awarded to A2 to A5 was reduced to six months rigorous imprisonment each — hence, the appeals — whether the fact that the decree of divorce was set aside and the marriage between A1 and the complainant was revived was known to A3, A4 and A5 — the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 does not conclusively establish that the fact that the decree of divorce was set aside was known to A3, A4 and A5 and, therefore, benefit of doubt to A3, A4 and A5 — impugned judgment set aside to the extent it convicts and sentences A3, A4 and A5 and are acquitted of the charge under the IPC — appeals disposed.

2012 SCCL.COM 54(Case No: Civil Appeal No(s). 1095 of 2012)
A.V. Padma & Others Appellant(s) versus R. Venugopal & Others Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/27/2012.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph and Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur.
Subject Index: Motor Vehicle accident — compensation amount invested in long term deposits — release of — application filed for — rejected — hence, the appeal — in the case of literate persons, it is not mandatory to invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit. Thus, sufficient discretion has been given to the Tribunal not to insist on investment of the compensation amount in long term fixed deposit and to release even the whole amount in the case of literate persons — impugned orders of the Tribunal and the High Court set aside — the application of the appellants for release of the amount invested in long term deposits stood allowed — appeal allowed.

2012 SCCL.COM 53(Case No: Civil Appeal No(s). 1094 of 2012)
Mohd. Asif Appellant(s) versus State of Maharashtra & Others Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/27/2012.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph and Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai.
Subject Index: Appointment — of the appellant — as an Assistant Teacher in the category reserved for Scheduled Castes — rejected — the Director of Municipal Administration informed the Municipal Council that since the Caste Certificate of the appellant was invalidated by the Committee, in the new recruitment process, the appellant also could apply — writ petition filed — dismissed — hence, the appeal — the High Court failed to consider the Resolution of the Standing Committee and the Resolution of the Municipal Council by which the appellant was treated as a candidate in the open category — impugned order set aside and the matter remanded back to the High Court for fresh disposal of the writ petition — appeal allowed.

2012 SCCL.COM 49(Case No: Civil Appeal No(s). 1015 of 2012 with C.A. Nos. 1016-1017, 1018 & 1027 of 2012)
Deepa Thomas & Others Appellant(s) versus Medical Council of India & Others Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/25/2012.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph and Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Gyan Sudha Misra.
Subject Index: Irregular admissions — in violation of the MCI Regulations — whether this Court should direct the respondents including the Medical Council of India, the University of Calicut and the Mahatma Gandhi University, Kottayam to permit the appellants to continue and complete the MBBS course to which they were admitted in the different Private Unaided Medical Colleges in Kerala in the academic year 2007-08, though they were not eligible for such admissions as per the Regulations of the MCI, but had satisfied all the eligibility criteria stipulated in the "Prospectus for MBBS Admission, 2007" issued by the respondent-Medical Colleges — to consider — the marks obtained in the CEE were not communicated to the candidates and consequently the appellants were not aware that they had secured only less than 50% marks in the CEE. The list of admitted candidates, along with the marks obtained by them in the qualifying examination and the CEE, was submitted by the colleges to the MCI immediately after the admissions — nothing on record to show that the marks secured by the appellants in the entrance examination were communicated to them — the Supreme Court opined that although the admissions of the appellants were irregular as they did not satisfy the requirement of securing not less than 50% marks in the CEE as prescribed in the MCI Regulations but directed that, as a special case, the appellants shall be allowed to continue and complete their MBBS course and also permit them to appear in the University examinations as if they had been regularly admitted to the course — appeals disposed.

2012 SCCL.COM 55(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 974 of 2012)
M P Rural Road Dev. Authority & Another Appellant(s) versus M/s L.G. Chaudhary Engineers and Contractors Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/24/2012.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly and Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Gyan Sudha Misra.
Subject Index: A) Madhya Pradesh Madhyasthan Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 — Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 — whether the provision of M.P. Act which statutorily provides for the parties to the Works Contract to refer all disputes to the Arbitration Tribunal constituted under Section 7 of the Act will continue to operate in view of the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which is a Central Act, subsequently enacted — to consider — the appellant terminated the Works Contract in view of several breaches by the respondent and encashed the bank guarantee furnished by the respondent — dispute arose — the M.P. Act provides for the establishment of a tribunal to arbitrate in disputes to which the State Government or a public undertaking is a party, and for matters incidental thereto or connected therewith — the Supreme Court held that the latter Act made by the Parliament i.e. A.C. Act 1996 clearly showed an intention to the effect that the State Law of Arbitration i.e. the M.P. Act should operate in the State of Madhya Pradesh in respect of certain specified types of arbitrations which are under the M.P. Act 1983 — it is directed that the arbitration proceeding may proceed under M.P. Act of 1983 and not under A.C. Act 1996 — appeal allowed. (Ganguly, J.) B) Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 — M.P. Act, 1983 — adjudication of the dispute in regard to cancellation of the works contract between the contesting parties — in issue — the Supreme Court held that the disputes arising out of execution of works contract has to be referred to the M.P. State Arbitration Tribunal and not under the Act, 1996. But the appellant M.P. Rural Road Development Authority cancelled the works contract itself which was executed in favour of the respondent — held that when the contract itself has been terminated, cancelled or repudiated then the nature of dispute does not fall within the definition of `works contract' for the sole reason that when the works contract itself is not in existence by virtue of its cancellation, the dispute cannot be referred to the M.P. State Arbitration Tribunal but may have to be decided by an Arbitrator appointed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — the appointment of an independent arbitrator by the High Court under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 sustained — appeal partly allowed — no costs. (Mrs. Gyan Sudha Misra, J.) ORDER :- the matter is placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for constituting a larger Bench to resolve the divergence.

2012 SCCL.COM 57(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 733 of 2012)
Vodafone International Holdings B.V. Appellant(s) versus Union of India & Another Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/20/2012.
Judge(s): Hon'ble The Chief Justice Mr. S.H. Kapadia, Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar.
Subject Index: A) Income Tax Act, 1961 — section 9 — offshore transaction involving a structured investment — a tax dispute in relation to the acquisition by Vodafone International Holdings BV [for short "VIH"], a company resident for tax purposes in the Netherlands, of the entire share capital of CGP Investments a company resident for tax purposes in the Cayman Islands vide transaction whose stated aim, according to the Revenue, was "acquisition of 67% controlling interest in HEL", being a company resident for tax purposes in India, thus, the Revenue seeks to tax the capital gains arising from the sale of the share capital of CGP on the basis that CGP, whilst not a tax resident in India, holds the underlying Indian assets — the Department declared that Indian Tax Authorities had jurisdiction to tax the transaction — writ petition filed — the High Court concluded that the transfer of the CGP share was not adequate in itself to achieve the object of consummating the transaction between HTIL and VIH. That, intrinsic to the transaction was a transfer of other "rights and entitlements" which constituted in themselves "capital assets" under IT Act, 1961 — hence, the appeal — the Supreme Court held that the Offshore Transaction is a bonafide structured FDI investment into India which fell outside India's territorial tax jurisdiction, hence not taxable. The said Offshore Transaction evidences participative investment and not a sham or tax avoidant preordained transaction. The said Offshore Transaction was between HTIL (a Cayman Islands company) and VIH (a company incorporated in Netherlands). The subject matter of the Transaction was the transfer of the CGP (a company incorporated in Cayman Islands). Consequently, the Indian Tax Authority had no territorial tax jurisdiction to tax the said Offshore Transaction — impugned judgment of the High Court set aside and the Department is directed to return the sum of Rs. 2,500 crores, deposited by the appellant in terms of interim order, with interest at the rate of 4% per annum — appeal allowed. (Mr. S.H. Kapadia, CJI) B) Cross-border investment — matter relating to — the appellant filed Writ Petition challenging the order issued by the Income Tax Department on various grounds including the jurisdiction of the Tax Department to impose capital gains tax to overseas transactions — the High Court upheld the jurisdiction of the Revenue to impose capital gains tax on Vodafone as a representative assessee and held that the sale of CGP share by HTIL to Vodafone would amount to transfer of a capital asset and the rights and entitlements flow from FWAs, SHAs, Term Sheet, loan assignments, brand license etc. form integral part of CGP share attracting capital gains tax — hence, the appeal — the Supreme Court found that the sale of CGP, was not the fall out of an artificial tax avoidance scheme or an artificial device, pre-ordained, or pre-conceived with the sole object of tax avoidance, but was a genuine commercial decision to exit from the Indian Telecom Sector. On acquiring CGP share, CGP has become a direct subsidiary of Vodafone, but both are legally independent entities. Vodafone does not own any assets of CGP, HTIL never sold nor Vodafone purchased any shares of either Array or the Mauritian subsidiaries, but only CGP, the share of which situates in Cayman Islands — all loan agreements and assignments of loans took place outside India and, hence, no question of transfer of any capital assets out of those transactions in India, attracting capital gains tax. An agreement for a non-compete clause was executed offshore. More so, the assurance given by HTIL to Vodafone that the brand name would not cease overnight, cannot be described as "property" rights so as to consider it as a capital asset chargeable to tax in India — impugned order of the High Court set aside — appeal allowed. (Mr. K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.)

2012 SCCL.COM 46(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 137 of 2007)
M/s H.D.F.C. Appellant(s) versus Gautam Kumar Nag & Others Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/20/2012.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam and Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai.
Subject Index: Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order XXXVII Rule 3 — permission to defend the suit — applications filed for — the appellant instituted a suit for realisation of its dues against defendant No.1 and the two respondents who were the guarantors to the loan as they defaulted in payment of the EMIs — the High Court allowed the appeals of the two respondents, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and permitted the appellants to file their written statements — hence, the appeal — the Supreme Court held that the correctness of the defence raised by the defendants could not have been looked into by the trial Judge at the time of deciding the application for leave to defend. If a triable issue was made out, then leave to defend ought to have been granted and thereafter the defence raised by the appellants could have been adjudicated on merits — impugned judgment of the High Court set aside and the order and decree passed by the trial court restored — appeal allowed.

2012 SCCL.COM 44(Case No: Civil Appeal No(s). 776 of 2012)
Horil Appellant(s) versus Keshav & Another Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/20/2012.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam and Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai.
Subject Index: Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order XXIII Rule 3-A — maintainability of the suit — in question — a suit filed by the appellant on the allegation that the decree passed by the Assistant Collector was based on a fraudulent compromise petition and it did not involve any adjudication of rights or interests in the agricultural lands — the High Court held that the suit filed by the appellant was not maintainable being barred in terms of Order XXIII Rule 3-A of the CPC, 1908 — hence, the appeal — the compromise decree which is alleged to be fraudulent and which is sought to be declared as nullity was passed not by a civil court but by a revenue court — the Supreme Court viewed that Revenue courts are neither equipped nor competent to effectively adjudicate on allegations of fraud that has overtones of criminality — nothing in Order XXIII Rule 3-A to bar the institution of a suit before the civil court even in regard to decrees or orders passed in suits and/or proceedings under different statutes before a court, tribunal or authority of limited and restricted jurisdiction, thus, the provision of Order XXIII shall not act as a bar against the suit filed by the appellant — impugned order of the High Court set aside and matter restored to the Munsif for disposal of the suit — appeal allowed.

2012 SCCL.COM 26(Case No: Civil Appeal No(s). 735 of 2012)
State of U.P. & Others Appellant(s) versus Ambrish Tandon & Another Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/20/2012.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam and Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar.
Subject Index: Indian Stamp Act, 1899 — sections 47A/33 — case registered under — deficiency in the stamp duty — tax evasion — a demand notice claiming an amount of Rs. 38,30,500/- plus 10% recovery charges was issued against the respondents — writ petition filed — the High Court issued a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order and the demand notice — hence, the appeal — whether the High Court is justified in interfering with the order passed by the Additional Collector (Finance and Revenue), Lucknow demanding differential stamp duty with interest and penalty in respect of the sale deed executed in favour of the respondents — to consider — though the Collector, Lucknow made a surprise site inspection, there is no record to show that all the details such as measurement, extent, boundaries were noted in the presence of the respondents who purchased the property. More so, at the time of execution of the sale deed, the house in question was used for residential purpose the — Supreme Court held that merely because the property is being used for commercial purpose at the later point of time may not be a relevant criterion for assessing the value for the purpose of stamp duty. The nature of user is relatable to the date of purchase and it is relevant for the purpose of calculation of stamp duty — no interference with the impugned order of the High Court — appeal dismissed — no costs.

2012 SCCL.COM 25(Case No: Criminal Appeal No(s). 181 of 2012)
B. Chandramathi Appellant(s) versus N. Prakash Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/20/2012.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam and Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai.
Subject Index: Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — section 138 — conviction and sentence of the appellant for commission of the offence under — the appellant issued a cheque for Rs.2 lakhs towards the repayment of the loan amount which was returned with an endorsement "Insufficient Funds" — conviction order upheld while quantum of sentence reduced to the period already undergone — appeal disposed.

2012 SCCL.COM 45(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 1157 of 2007)
Shanmughan Appellant(s) versus State of Kerala Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/19/2012.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly and Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 323/302 — conviction and sentence for commission of the offence under — appeal against — the wife of the appellant died as a result of poisoning on having been administered cyanide — whether it was a case of suicidal poisoning or homicidal poisoning — there is presence of lacerated wounds on the lips, contusions in the ear and abrasions in the chest. These injuries clearly show that some force was used while administering the poison. Apart from the appellant no one was there in bed room to apply force on the victim — the evidence of PW 7 shows that all the injuries were fresh injuries and could be because of forcible administration of poison — the prosecution rightly proved that it is a case of murder and succeeded in proving the motive of the appellant and the entire chain of circumstances is consistent with the guilt of the appellant — held no interference in the concurrent findings of the lower Courts — appeal dismissed.

2012 SCCL.COM 43(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 2014 of 2006)
Assam Urban Water Supply & Sewage Board Appellant(s) versus M/s Subash Projects & Marketing Ltd. Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/19/2012.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha and Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L. Gokhale.
Subject Index: Limitation Act, 1963 — section 4 — provision of — whether applicable — Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — section 34(3) — applications filed for setting aside the Arbitral Award and for extension of time — dismissed on the ground of limitation — whether the appellants are entitled to extension of time under Section 4 of the 1963 Act — section 34(3) of the 1996 Act provides that an application for setting aside an award may be made within three months of the receipt of the arbitral award, however, no application for setting aside the arbitral awards was made by the appellants before elapse of three months from the receipt thereof — section 2(j) of the 1963 Act when read in the context of Section 34(3) of the 1996 Act, it becomes amply clear that the prescribed period for making an application for setting aside arbitral award is three months, therefore, the Supreme Court opined that the period of 30 days beyond three months which the court may extend on sufficient cause under the proviso appended to sub-section (3) of Section 34 of the 1996 Act being not the 'period of limitation' or, 'prescribed period', Section 4 of the 1963 Act is not, at all, attracted — order of dismissal of the Arbitration Appeals — not interfered — appeal dismissed — no costs.

2012 SCCL.COM 35(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 2012 with Criminal Appeal Nos. 175 and 176 of 2012)
Sudevanand Appellant(s) versus State Through CBI Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/19/2012.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam and Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 115, 307/120B — Explosives Substances Act, 1908 — section 4(b) — conviction and sentence under — of the appellants based on the evidence of the Approver, P.W.1 — CrPC, 1973 — section 391 — during the pendency of the appeal, three criminal miscellaneous appplications filed to summon Vikram, the Approver (PW.1 in the case), for further cross-examination on merits — the High Court refused the said prayer and held that it was within the knowledge of the appellants that the Approver had made the retraction in the year 1978 disowning his earlier statements but the three applications in question were filed after a lag of more than 20 years — hence, the appeal — the appellants were not found in anyway responsible for the inordinate delay in their appeals — the Supreme Court viewed that it is not only Vikram, the Approver (PW-1) who made diametrically opposite statements but the CBI and the State (CID) seem to be at loggerheads with the one accusing the other of manipulating and using Vikram for its own designs and the position may be clear in case if he is subjected to further examination with reference to his statement — the provision of section 391, CrPC is not limited to recall of a witness for further cross-examination with reference to his previous statement — impugned order of the High Court in refusing to summon Vikram, the Approver (PW.1) for his further examination set aside and direct the High Court to summon Vikram (PW.1) for his further examination by the appellants and if so desired by the CBI — appeals allowed.

2012 SCCL.COM 34(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 2467 of 2005)
Jagan Singh (Dead) Through LRS. Appellant(s) versus Dhanwanti & Another Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/19/2012.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam and Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L. Gokhale.
Subject Index: U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1951 — section 169 — bequest by a bhumidhar — Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — section 14(2) — absolute property of a female Hindu — Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — section 52 — doctrine of 'lis pendens' — applicability of — whether section 169 of the U.P. Act prohibits a bhumidhar with transferable rights from imposing a restriction on the rights of a legatee by limiting the bequest to the life time of the legatee — whether such a restricted bequest is permissible in view of section 14 (2) of the Act, 1956 — to consider — the ld. High Court held that the right to transfer cannot be restricted either by contract or by a will of a tenure holder, and that the restriction contained in the will that the legatee would not have a right to transfer the property was repugnant to the incidents of a bhumidhari tenure under the U.P. Act — hence, the appeal — the bequest made under section 169 (1) in favour of a female Hindu, if it is a restricted one, shall remain a restricted one under sub-section (2) of section 14 of Hindu Succession Act, since the same will be governed by the terms of the will — the respondent No. 1 entered into the agreement of sale of the land in dispute with applicant when there was no stay operating against such sale, and in fact when the second appeal had not been filed, but which came to be filed afterwards within the period of limitation, therefore, such a case will be covered under section 52 of the TPA — impugned order of the lower Courts as affirmed by the High Court set aside and declared that the respondent No. 1 had no right to sell the disputed parcel of land — appeal disposed.

2012 SCCL.COM 22(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 684 of 2012)
Ramdas Bansal (D) Thr. Lr. Appellant(s) versus Kharag Singh Baid & Others Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/19/2012.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph.
Subject Index: Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949 — Calcutta Thika and other Tenancies and Lands (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981 — West Bengal (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 2001 — vacant possession of the suit property — title suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for — CPC, 1908 — Order XLI Rule 21 — application filed by the appellant to bring on record subsequent facts to prove his status as a tenant of a portion of the structure in relation to which the Appellant had acquired the status of a Bharatia after the acquisition of Thika Tenancies under the 1981 Act — disallowed — hence, the appeal — the Respondents were not Thika Tenants since the building had been constructed on the land in question before the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949, came into operation. The Appellant failed to establish that the Respondents or their predecessors-in-interest were Thika Tenants of the suit property and even after execution of the lease deed in favour of the Respondents, the lessor remained the owner of the property, whereas the Respondents' father merely got the right to enjoyment of the property and could not, therefore, be said to be the Thika Tenant within the meaning of the definition given in the subsequent legislations — the Supreme Court held that having been granted a lease for a period of twenty one years in respect of the building standing on the suit premises in which the Grace Cinema was located, the Appellant could never claim to be a Thika Tenant in respect of the suit premises — no interference with the order of the High Court — appeal dismissed.

2012 SCCL.COM 48(Case No: Civil Appeal No(s). 655 of 2012)
Regional P.F. Commissioner Appellant(s) versus Hooghly Mills Co. Ltd. & Others Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/18/2012.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly and Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur.
Subject Index: Employees Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 — whether the employer of an establishment which is an `exempted establishment' under the Act, 1952 is subject to the provisions of Section 14B of the said Act whereby in cases of default in the payment of contribution to the provident fund, proceedings for recovery of damages can be initiated against the employer of such an `exempted establishment' — held yes.

2012 SCCL.COM 47(Case No: Civil Appeal No(s). 654 of 2012)
Rameshbhai Dabhai Naika Appellant(s) versus State of Gujarat & Others Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/18/2012.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam and Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai.
Subject Index: Caste Certificate — benefit of the tribal certificate has been taken away from the appellant on the sole ground that he was the son of a Kshatriya father — hence, the appeal — what would be the status of a person, one of whose parents belongs to the scheduled castes/scheduled tribes and the other does not come from scheduled castes/scheduled tribes and what would be the entitlement of a person from such parents to the benefits of affirmative action sanctioned by the Constitution — the Supreme Court viewed that in an inter-caste marriage or a marriage between a tribal and a non-tribal the determination of the caste of the offspring is essentially a question of fact to be decided on the basis of the facts adduced in each case. It is open to the child of such marriage to lead evidence to show that he/she was brought up by the mother who belonged to the scheduled caste/scheduled tribe — the orders passed by the High Court and the Scrutiny Committee are set aside and the case remitted to the Scrutiny Committee for decision afresh — appeal allowed.

2012 SCCL.COM 32(Case No: Criminal Appeal No(s). 1840 of 2008)
Onkar & Another Appellant(s) versus State of U.P. Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/18/2012.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 302/149, 307 r/w section 149 and section 452 — conviction and sentence of the appellants for commission of the offences under — appeal against — injuries reports stood proved by PW.1 and PW.7 and they corroborate the prosecution version. In spite of the fact that the accused Mohd. Shafi got injured but no grievance has ever been raised by him in this regard — the other co-accused who were not the residents of the village where the offence has been committed, had been duly identified in Test Identification Parade as well as in court by all the three eye-witnesses — the entire evidences collectively led to the inference that the assailants had an object to commit murder of persons on the victims' side and they participated in the crime — the graveness of charges against the appellants that they in concert with other accused to achieve a common object entered into the house of the complainant stood proved — appeal dismissed.

2012 SCCL.COM 24(Case No: Civil Appeal No(s). 657 of 2012)
Burdwan Central Co-op Bank Ltd. & Another Appellant(s) versus Asim Chatterjee & Others Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/18/2012.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph.
Subject Index: West Bengal Co-operative Societies Rules, 1987 — whether an employer can take disciplinary action against an employee in regard to acts purported to have been done by him in his previous employment in an affiliated society — to consider — order of dismissal from service of the respondent No.1 — in issue — the High Court held that the Bank could not have proceeded against the Respondent No.1 in respect of an illegality and/or misconduct which had allegedly been committed when he was not an employee of the Bank — hence, the appeal — the Supreme Court viewed that even though the Respondent No.1 may not have been under the direct administrative control of the Bank at the relevant point of time when the defalcation is alleged to have taken place, on account of the affiliation of the Samity with the Bank under the provisions of the Rules, 1987, the Appellant-Bank had jurisdiction over the Respondent No.1 after he joined the employment of the Appellant-Bank. Since the question of integrity in managing the accounts of the Samity is in question, it was but natural for the Bank to proceed departmentally against the Respondent No.1 after coming to learn of the allegations which have been made against him — impugned order of the High Court set aside — the decision taken by the Bank in dismissing the Respondent No.1 from service restored — appeal allowed.

2012 SCCL.COM 23(Case No: SLP (Civil) No(s). 10184 of 2008)
A.V.M. Sales Corporation Petitioner(s) versus M/s. Anuradha Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/17/2012.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph.
Subject Index: Indian Contract Act, 1872 — sections 23 and 28 — agreements in restrain of legal proceedings, void — a contract entered into between the parties for supply of chemicals — disputes arose — suit filed for recovery of dues — jurisdiction of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada in decreeing the respondent's suit — in challenge — whether the parties may by mutual agreement exclude the jurisdiction of one of the Courts, having regard to the provisions of Sections 23 and 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 — held yes — the provisions of section 28 read with section 23 clearly mandate that if any mutual agreement is intended to restrict or extinguish the right of a party from enforcing his/her right under or in respect of a contract, by the usual legal proceedings in the ordinary Tribunals, such an agreement would to that extent be void — the Supreme Court held that though the Courts at Vijayawada would also have jurisdiction, along with the Courts at Calcutta, to entertain and try a suit relating to and arising out of the Agreement and the Mutual Understanding, such jurisdiction of the Courts at Vijayawada would stand ousted by virtue of the exclusion clause in the Agreement — the decree passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada and the impugned judgment of the High Court set aside and the original suit is directed to present before the appropriate Court in Calcutta having jurisdiction to try the suit — petition allowed.

2012 SCCL.COM 21(Case No: Civil Appeal No(s). 599 of 2012)
State of Gujarat & Others Appellant(s) versus Essar Oil Ltd. & Another Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/17/2012.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar.
Subject Index: Sales Tax incentive — benfit of — granted in favour of the respondent No.1-Essar — in challenge — Essar was encouraged by the State Government to set up a major venture at Vadinar in Jamnagar District of Gujarat as a 100% export oriented unit for refining of petroleum products with a capacity of 9 Million Tons per annum, however, the respondents could not set up the plant for the purpose of commercial production within time, thus, sent representations to the Government requesting extension of time limit for commencement of commercial production for the purpose of sales tax deferment incentive scheme, but remained undecided — writ petition filed — the High Court held that the respondents are entitled to the benefit of Sales Tax Waiver Scheme on the principle of restitution and that the respondents cannot be made to lose the benefit under the Sales Tax Waiver Scheme, for an act of Court — whether the orders of the High Court whereby the appellant was restrained from giving any further permission for laying pipelines has resulted in any undue advantage to appellant — no — the appellant also challenged the restraining order before this Court and twin objects of development of the backward areas and employment opportunities, which were sought to be achieved by the appellant by floating the said scheme, were adversely affected — no inaction on the part of appellant was pleaded by Essar — Essar was categorically told much prior to the expiry of the period, that time for availing the exemption cannot be extended, however, Essar failed to meet the deadline — the Supreme Court held that a person invoking an exception or an exemption provision to relieve him of the tax liability must establish clearly and in case of doubt or ambiguity, benefit of it must go to the State — impugned order of the High Court set aside — appeal allowed.

2012 SCCL.COM 38(Case No: Civil Appeal No(s). 561 of 2012)
J. Samuel & Others Appellant(s) versus Gattu Mahesh & Others Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/16/2012.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam and Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar.
Subject Index: Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order VI Rule 17 — application under — for amendment of plaint — allowed — hence, the appeal — specific performance of the contract of sale — suit filed for — whether the High Court is right in allowing the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint which was filed after conclusion of trial and reserving the matter for orders — Rule 17 clearly states that no amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced except when the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial — the Supreme Court held that the act of neglecting to perform an action which one has an obligation to do cannot be called as a typographical error, therefore, it cannot be construed that due diligence was adhered to and in any event, omission of mandatory requirement running into 3 to 4 sentences cannot be a typographical error as claimed by the plaintiffs — impugned order passed by the High Court set aside — appeal allowed.

2012 SCCL.COM 37(Case No: Criminal Appeal No(s). 158 of 2012)
C. Shakunthala & Others Appellant(s) versus H.P. Udayakumar & Another Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/16/2012.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam and Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar.
Subject Index: Acquittal — appeal against — whether the impugned judgment of the High Court dismissing Crl. CCC No. 32 of 2005 after recording that prima facie case was made against the respondents, thereafter framing charges and recording evidence of the parties, without adverting to the plea of the parties and evidence on record, by concluding that the second application was under different circumstance, the identity of the property is disputed and that the respondents cannot be attributed with unlawful intention for abuse of the process of the court is legally sustainable — held no — the prima facie conclusion arrived by the earlier Bench in the year 2006, based on the acceptable materials, cannot be ignored by another Bench at the time of the passing the final order as if it is an Appellate Court. When the coordinate Bench on earlier occasion, based on the acceptable materials prima facie concluded that charges have to be framed, it is but proper by the present Bench to arrive and take a final decision in the light of the materials formulated by the earlier Bench — impugned order set aside and matter remitted to the High Court for passing fresh order — appeal allowed.

2012 SCCL.COM 30(Case No: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6614-6615 of 2011)
State of J & K Petitioner(s) versus Vinod Kumar Verma & Another Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/16/2012.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam and Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar.
Subject Index: Seniority list — of Junior Engineers of Power Development Department (PDD) — non-inclusion of the names of the respondents — writ petition filed — the High Court observed that the Compliance Report filed by the State is not in consonance with the directions issued earlier, directed to file a better affidavit/Compliance Report by showing the names of the respondents in the Seniority List — hence, the petitions — the main contempt petition itself is pending on the file of the learned single Judge of the High Court, therefore, the High Court is directed to dispose of the same on merits after affording opportunity to all the parties concerned — petitions disposed.

2012 SCCL.COM 28(Case No: Criminal Appeal No(s). 159 of 2012)
Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Appellant(s) versus State of U.P. & Another Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/16/2012.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam and Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 302, 307 — offences under — order of the High Court granting bail to the respondent No.2/accused — in challenge — whether the High Court was justified in enlarging the second respondent on bail after imposing certain conditions — the second respondent is a sitting Member of Parliament facing several criminal cases and most of the cases ended in acquittal for want of proper witnesses or pending trial — the Supreme Court viewed that merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected — the second respondent was in jail since 24.08.2009, the trial commenced by examining the two witnesses on the side of the prosecution and State assured that trial will not be prolonged and conclude within a reasonable time — held no interference with the order of the High Court — appeal dismissed.

2012 SCCL.COM 19(Case No: Civil Appeal No(s). 3498-99, 3596, 3598, 4509-4522, 4704, 4798, 4824, 4954-55, 4957, 4959, 4962-64, 4967 of 2009 and C.A. No. 7542 of 2004.Civil Appeal No(s). 7543 of 2004)
M/s. National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Appellant(s) versus M. Madhusudhan Reddy & Another Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/16/2012.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.
Subject Index: A) Defective seeds — supply of — failure of the crops/less yield — compensation awarded. B) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — section 2(1)(d) — 'consumer' — Seeds Act, 1966 — provisions of — whether applicable — whether the Seeds Act is a special legislation vis-a-vis the Consumer Act and the District Forums could not have entertained and decided the complaints filed by the respondents because they could seek redressal of their grievance regarding the quality of seeds sold by the appellant by lodging complaint with the concerned Seed Inspectors with a request for taking action under Section 19 read with Section 21 of the Seeds Act — whether the growers of seeds were not entitled to file complaint under the Consumer Act and the only remedy available to them for the alleged breach of the terms of agreement was to apply for arbitration — whether the District Forum committed a jurisdictional error by awarding compensation to the respondents without complying with the procedure prescribed under Section 13(1)(c) — to consider — though, the Seeds Act is a special legislation enacted for ensuring that there is no compromise with the quality of seeds sold to the farmers and provisions have been made for imposition of substantive punishment on a person found guilty of violating the provisions relating to the quality of the seeds, however, the Seeds Act is totally silent on the issue of payment of compensation for the loss of crop on account of use of defective seeds supplied — the remedy of arbitration is not the only remedy available to a grower. Rather, it is an optional remedy — the reports of the agricultural experts unmistakably revealed that the crops had failed because of defective seeds/foundation seeds, thus, the procedure adopted by the District Forum was in no way contrary to Section 13(1)(c) — the Supreme Court held that since the farmers/growers purchased seeds by paying a price to the appellant, they certainly fall within the ambit of Section 2(d)(i) of the Consumer Act — appeals dismissed.

2012 SCCL.COM 36(Case No: Civil Appeal No(s). 4446 of 2006)
Punjab & Sind Bank Appellant(s) versus M/s. C.S. Company & Others Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/13/2012.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar and Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai.
Subject Index: Realization of money — suit filed for — the defendants approached the plaintiff-bank for issuance of Bank Guarantee for an aggregate amount of Rs.20 lakhs on their behalf in favour of KSEB. Thereafter, the KSEB terminated the contract given to defendant 1 on account of breach of the terms and conditions of the contract and thus, the plaintiff-bank had to pay Rs.20 lakhs in aggregate under two Bank Guarantees furnished on behalf of defendant 1 to KSEB — the trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff-bank and directed the defendants to pay Rs.19,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 18.5% per annum with future interest at the rate of 18.5% per annum from the date of suit till realization. However, the High Court non-suited the plaintiff-Bank on the ground that since the originals of the Bank Guarantees were not produced by the plaintiff-bank, the plaintiff-bank cannot successfully lay its claim on the said two Bank Guarantees — hence, the appeal — the defendants 1, 2, 3 and 4 clearly admitted issuance of the Bank Guarantees. Though they have denied that defendants 2 to 8 went to the plaintiff-bank to deposit the title deeds of their properties, they admitted that defendant 4 had by his letter forwarded the title deeds of his properties to the plaintiff-bank. They admitted the assignment of Fixed Deposit Receipts in the sum of Rs.4,75,000/- and availment of mobilization advance of Rs.19 lakhs by defendant 1 — nothing on record to establish the case of the defendants that the plaintiff-bank was party to such a fraud of creating fabricated documents after obtaining blank signed papers from the defendants. Also, in the schedule of properties under the heading "assets of the partners", it is clearly stated that these properties are mortgaged to the Bank as security for Bank Guarantee of Rs.20 lakhs — the Supreme Court opined that the said FDRs had rightly encashed by the plaintiff Bank and the invocation of Bank Guarantees were done when they were in force, in view of their extension — impugned order of the High Court set aside and the decree passed by the trial Court restored — appeal disposed.

2012 SCCL.COM 27(Case No: Civil Appeal No(s). 4055-4056 of 2009 with C.A. Nos. 5633 of 2009 & 7142 of 2010)
Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-II Appellant(s) versus M/s. Osnar Chemical P. Ltd. Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/13/2012.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.
Subject Index: Central Excise Act, 1944 — section 35L(b) — appeals under — whether the addition and mixing of polymers and additives to base bitumen results in the manufacture of a new marketable commodity and as such exigible to Excise duty — held no — the process of mixing polymers and additives with bitumen does not amount to manufacture as the said process merely resulted in the improvement of quality of bitumen. The said process did not result in transformation of bitumen into a new product having a different identity, characteristic and use. The end use also remained the same, namely for mixing of aggregates for constructing the roads. — appeals dismissed — no costs.

2012 SCCL.COM 20(Case No: Civil Appeal No(s). 4530-4532 of 2005 with C.A. Nos. 8048 of 2004)
M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Appellant(s) versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/13/2012.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Patnaik and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave.
Subject Index: A) Central Excise Act & Rules, 1944 — section 35L(b) — appeals under — Rule 192 — application for concession — the appellant produces inter alia Reduced Crude Oil which was exempted from excise duty on certain conditions. However, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise demanded excise duty of Rs. 32,35,485/- from the appellant for RCO supplied to the Ahmedabad Electricity Company Ltd. during the period 01.01.1996 to 25.06.1996 on the ground that the said company did not have a registration certificate in Form CT-2 under Rule 192 and, therefore, the RCO supplied by the appellant to the Ahmedabad Electricity Company Ltd. during this period was not exempt from excise duty — appeal filed — the statutory requirement of conditional exemption notification had not been complied with by the appellant as the procedure laid down in Rule 192 of Chapter X of the Rules was not followed, the appellant is not entitled to avail the exemption of excise duty under the exemption notification during that period — appeals dismissed. B) Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2001 — Rule 3 — application to obtain the benefit — non compliance of — the appellant supplied 2241.908 MT of Naphtha to Indo Gulf Corporation Limited and while clearing from its factory did not make any payment of Central Excise duty. The Commissioner of Central Excise confirmed the demand of duty amounting to Rs. 44,71,902/- on the Naphtha and also imposed a penalty equivalent to the duty amount — as the procedure set out in the 2001 Rules has not been followed, the appellant was not entitled to exemption on the Naphtha cleared from its factory for supply to Indo Gulf Corporation Limited for manufacture of fertilizer — appeal dismissed.

2012 SCCL.COM 18(Case No: Civil Appeal No(s). 7152 of 2004 with Civil Appeal No(s).429, 430 & 431 of 2012)
M/s. Flex Engineering Ltd. Appellant(s) versus Commissioner of Central Excise, U.P. Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/13/2012.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.
Subject Index: Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rules — Rule 57A — whether the material on which Modvat credit is claimed by the assessee, not physically used in the manufacture of the said machine but used for testing the F&S machines would be covered within the sweep of the expression "in or in relation to the manufacture of the final products", as appearing in Rule 57A of the Rules — to consider — the assessee availed of the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of the Flexible Laminated Plastic Film in roll form & Poly Paper used for testing the F&S machine which was denied by the adjudicating authority — writ petition filed — the High Court held that materials used after manufacture of the final product, viz. the F&S machine, is complete, is only to detect the deficiency in the final product and therefore, could not be the goods used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product within the meaning of Rule 57A of the Rules — hence, the appeals — the process of manufacture will not be said to be complete till the time the machines meet the contractual specifications and that will not be possible unless the machines are subjected to individual testing — the revenue failed to discharge the onus of proving the marketability of the machines thus assembled, prior to the stage of testing — the Supreme Court opined that the process of testing the customised F&S machines is inextricably connected with the manufacturing process, in as much as, until this process is carried out in terms of the covenant in the purchase order, the manufacturing process is not complete; the machines are not fit for sale and hence not marketable at the factory gate therefore, the manufacturing process gets completed on testing of the said machines and hence, the flexible plastic films used for testing the F&S machines are inputs used in relation to the manufacture of the final product and would be eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Rules — impugned order of the High Court set aside — appeals allowed.

2012 SCCL.COM 17(Case No: Civil Appeal No(s). 7268 of 2002 with C.A. No. 6878 of 2003)
Food Corporation of India & Others Appellant(s) versus Bhartiya K. Nigam Karmchari Sangh & Another Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/13/2012.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil R.Dave.
Subject Index: Increment — to the in-service employees — benefit of — the decision of the High Court declaring Circular which accorded monetary incentives to in-service employees of the Food Corporation of India for acquiring higher qualifications, as discriminatory and further that if any benefit under the said Circular has been given to any employee, it shall be withdrawn — in challenge — whether grant of incentives only to the in-service employees of the FCI, who acquire professional qualifications after entering in service and denial of the same to those who had acquired the same professional qualifications before entering the service is invalid in law, being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution — no — the main purpose of the classification adopted by the FCI is to grant an incentive to the employees already in service in the FCI to motivate them to acquire higher qualifications for their own benefit as well as of their employer viz. the FCI — the Supreme Court opined that grant of the incentive in relation to the in-service employees, in no way amounts to discrimination between the in-service employees and the employees recruited with higher qualification, offending either Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution, particularly when the incentive is in the form of a special increment as `personal pay' to be merged in pay at the time of promotion to the next higher grade and thus, having no bearing on the inter-se seniority and/or to the future promotion to the next higher grade — impugned order of the High Court set aside — appeal filed by the FCI allowed.

2012 SCCL.COM 14(Case No: Criminal Appeal No(s). 522 of 2006)
Madhu Appellant(s) versus State of Kerala Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/13/2012.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 302 & 392 r/w section 34 — conviction and sentence under — of the accused for having robbed Padmini Devi of her gold ornaments and thereafter having murdered her at her residence — the charge-sheet pointedly records that accused no.1, caught hold of the plated hair and neck of the deceased and accused No. 2 caught hold of her feet, and forcibly dragged her into the water and suffocated her thereby cause her death by drowning. However, the factual position remained unproved — the evidence produced by the prosecution does not, in any way, establish the guilt of the accused — the statements made by the accused cannot be proved against the accused , or to their detriment which remove the most vital link in the chain of events sought to be established by the prosecution against the accused — evidence produced to establish the presence of the accused near the place of occurrence, at or about the time of the commission of the crime has also been found to be irrelevant — the theft of the golden ornaments worn by the deceased was also doubtful — the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of events lending to the determination, that the inference being drawn from the evidence is the only inescapable conclusion — conviction order set aside — appeal allowed — acquittal on benefit of doubt.

2012 SCCL.COM 12(Case No: SLP (Civil) No(s). 13896-13897 of 2008)
Om Prakash Asati Petitioner(s) versus State of U.P. & others Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/13/2012.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar.
Subject Index: Pre-mature retirement from service — of the petitioner — impugned order in challenge — whether the setting aside of the criterion adopted by the Screening Committee would ipso facto result in the negation of the impugned order by which the petitioner was prematurely retired from service — the Supreme Court held that the impugned order passed by the Jal Nigam, prematurely retiring the petitioner from its employment, cannot be set aside merely because the criterion adopted by the Jal Nigam has been set aside. The veracity of the impugned order will have to be examined independently of the criterion so as to determine, whether or not the impugned order is sustainable on the basis of the record taken into consideration by the Screening Committee — besides the gradual deterioration in his career-graph noticeable from the last 7 years of his service, punishment orders were passed against the petitioner on 3 occasions within the last 4 years — there was a gradual deterioration in the overall performance of the petitioner, thus, the impugned order cannot be described as arbitrary or unfair in any manner — appeal dismissed.

2012 SCCL.COM 42(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 121 of 2012)
Jile Singh Appellant(s) versus State of U.P. & Another Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/12/2012.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha and Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L. Gokhale.
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — sections 209, 204(1)(b) — offence of murder of the son of the respondent No.2 — issuance of summons to the appellant — in challenge — the stage of Section 209 of the Code having reached in the case, it was not open to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura to exercise the power under Section 204(1)(b) of the Code and issue summons to the appellant — the Supreme Court held that if the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura, in issuing summons against the appellant on the complaint filed by the respondent No. 2-complainant, which has been confirmed by the High Court, is allowed to stand, it would mean addition of the appellant to the array of the accused in a pending case before the Sessions Judge at a stage prior to collecting any evidence by that court. This course is absolutely impermissible — impugned order against the appellant set aside — appeal allowed.

2012 SCCL.COM 31(Case No: Criminal Appeal No(s). 126 of 2012)
Azija Begum Appellant(s) versus State of Maharashtra & Another Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/12/2012.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly and Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur.
Subject Index: Criminal Investigation — of the offence of murder — the appellant filed appeal contending that even though the Magistrate was not satisfied with the way in which the investigation was proceeded and wanted further investigation to be conducted, but strangely handed over the investigation to the same police authorities about whose investigation the Magistrate was not satisfied — the Supreme Court held that a fair and proper investigation is always conducive to the ends of justice and for establishing rule of law and maintaining proper balance in law and order — the second respondent, the Additional Director General of Police, State CID, Pune Division, Pune, Maharashtra is directed to order a proper investigation in the matter by deputing a senior officer from his organization to undertake a thorough investigation and examine in detail the facts and circumstances of the case and then furnish a report to the trial Court — appeal allowed.

2012 SCCL.COM 29(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 400 of 2012)
Chandrakala Trivedi Appellant(s) versus State of Rajasthan & Others Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/12/2012.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly and Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur.
Subject Index: Appointment — to the post of Teacher — the provisional selection of the appellant was cancelled on the ground that as the appellant has not passed the Senior Secondary Examination, which is the basic qualification for the post in question, the candidature of the appellant cannot be considered — hence, the appeal — the appellant on the basis of her qualification was provisionally selected after she had submitted her requisite testimonials — the terms of qualifications clearly mentioned that the basic qualification is Senior Secondary or Intermediate or its equivalent — the Supreme Court held that by using the expression, 'equivalent' one means that there are some degrees of flexibility or adjustment which do not lower the stated requirement, therefore, the appellant should be considered reasonably and the provisional appointment which was given to her should not be cancelled — ordered accordingly.

2012 SCCL.COM 10(Case No: Criminal Appeal No(s). 1318-1320 of 2007)
Alister Anthony Pareira Appellant(s) versus State of Maharashtra Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/12/2012.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 304 Part II, 338 and 337 — conviction and sentence of the accused appellant for commission of the offences under — the appellant while driving the car (corolla) rashly and negligently rammed the car over the pavement; caused death of seven persons and injuries to eight persons. On his medical examination, he was found to have 0.112% w/v liquor (ethyl alcohol) in his blood — whether it is permissible to try and convict a person for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC and the offence punishable under Section 338 IPC for a single act of the same transaction? — whether by not charging the appellant of 'drunken condition' and not putting to him the entire incriminting evidence let in by the prosecution, the trial and conviction of the appellant got affected? — whether prosecution evidence establishes beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the offences by the appellant under Section 304 Part II, IPC, Section 338 IPC and Section 337 IPC? — to consider — the two charges under Section 304 Part II IPC and Section 338 IPC can legally co-exist in a case of single rash or negligent act where a rash or negligent act is done with the knowledge of likelihood of its dangerous consequences — the appellant was fully aware of the prosecution evidence relating to his rash and negligent driving in the drunken condition thus by not putting to the appellant expressly the CA report (Ex. 49) and the evidence of PW 1, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the appellant — the evidence and materials on record prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant can be attributed with knowledge that his act of driving the vehicle at a high speed in the rash or negligent manner was dangerous enough and he knew that one result would very likely be that people who were asleep on the pavement may be hit, should the vehicle go out of control — the essential ingredients of sections 304 Part - II, 338 and 337 were successfully established by the prosecution againt the appellant — appeals dismissed.

2012 SCCL.COM 9(Case No: Criminal Appeal No(s). 1091 of 2006)
Mohd. Hussain @ Julfikar Ali Appellant(s) versus The State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/11/2012.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chandramauli Kr. Prasad.
Subject Index: IPC, 1860 — sections 302/307 — Explosives Substances Act, 1908 —section 3 — conviction and sentence of the appellant to death for offences under — appeal filed —on the ground that he was not given a fair and impartial trial and was denied the right of a counsel — the appellant was initially assisted by a learned counsel employed by the learned Sessions Judge. However, in the mid way, the learned counsel disappeared before conclusion of the trial. The Court did not appoint any counsel to defend the accused — materials on record showed that the examination of witnesses from 1 to 56 was done when accused was not represented by an advocate and none of the 56 witnesses were cross-examined by the accused/appellant — the appellant/accused was not provided the assistance of a counsel in a substantial and meaningful sense — impugned conviction and sentence order set aside and the matter remanded to the trial court for fresh disposal in accordance with law — appeal allowed. (H.L.Dattu J.) IPC, 1860 — sections 302/307 — Explosive Substances Act, 1908 — section 3 — conviction and sentence order under — against the appellant — in challenge on the ground that he was not given a fair trial — whether it is a fit case in which direction be given for the de novo trial of the appellant after giving him the assistance of a counsel — the Supreme Court found that for an occurrence of 1997, the appellant was arrested in 1998 and since then he is in judicial custody, therefore, opined that after such a distance of time it shall be travesty of justice to direct for the appellant's de novo trial — conviction order of the appellant set aside and directed that he be deported to his country in accordance with law — appeal allowed. (Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J.) ORDER :- In view of the difference of opinion with regard to the issue, the appeal placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for being assigned to appropriate Bench.

2012 SCCL.COM 40(Case No: Civil Appeal No(s). 281-282 of 2012)
Collector Distt. Gwalior & Another Appellant(s) versus Cine Exhibitors P. Ltd. & Another Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/11/2012.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra.
Subject Index: Termination of lease — licence for running the cinema hall — cancellation of — the Division Bench dislodged the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Gwalior Development Authority terminating the lease of the respondent No. 1 and directed it to surrender the possession of the property in question — hence, the appeals — the Division Bench opined that no notice of termination of lease was given despite the same being imperative and there was no commission of breach of the express conditions of the lease deed and hence, the cancellation was totally unsustainable — whether the Division Bench is justified in stating in a sweeping manner that when the GDA had granted the lease of the land in auction within the knowledge of the State, the State is estopped from raising any such ground that the land had not been transferred to the GDA after lapse of thirty years — to consider — the land is recorded as nazul land for the Public Works Department. Nothing has been brought on record that it had ever been notified for transfer in favour of the GDA. Thus the GDA never became the owner of the land or had the authority to deal with the land and, therefore, it could not have put the land to auction for any purpose whatsoever. Ergo, the first respondent cannot assert any right or advance any claim to remain in possession and run the cinema hall and that too after cancellation of the licence, solely on the basis of a lease granted by its lessor, a statutory authority, who had no right on the land for the simon pure reason that the ownership still remained with the State Government — the orders passed in the writ appeal and the application for review set aside — appeals allowed — no costs.

2012 SCCL.COM 39(Case No: Writ Petition (Civil) No(s). 31 of 2004)
N.C. Das Petitioner(s) versus Gauhati High Court Thr. Registrar & Others Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/11/2012.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha and Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L. Gokhale.
Subject Index: Tripura Judicial Service Rules, 2003 — Rule 20 — extension of services — Assured Career Progress — benefits under — application filed for — benefits denied to the petitioner — writ petition filed — the High Court is empowered to assess and evaluate the record of a judicial officer for continued utility in service upto 60 years — the mode and manner of assessment and evaluation of the potential of continued utility is prescribed in Rule 20(B)(I) of the 2003 Rules. No legal flaw pointed out to the exercise undertaken by the High Court in respect of the assessment and evaluation of the petitioner's service for continued utility in service upto 60 years — the adverse remarks on the petitioner's service record of the years 2000, 2001 and 2002 continued to remain on record, therefore, it cannot be said that he has been wrongly denied promotion to Grade-I — writ petition dismissed.

2012 SCCL.COM 13(Case No: Civil Appeal No(s). 274 of 2012)
Medical Council of India Appellant(s) versus JSS Medical College & another Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/11/2012.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chandramauli Kr. Prasad.
Subject Index: MBBS Course — increase of intake capacity — in respondent No.1 college — petition filed for directing the Medical Council of India for issuance of letter of permission — allowed — hence, the appeal — the Supreme Court opined that the High Court, erred in permitting increase in seats by interim order. Courts cannot by its fiat increase the seats, a task entrusted to the Board of Governors and that too by interim order — the interim order passed by the High Court set aside — appeal allowed — no costs.

2012 SCCL.COM 19(Case No: Civil Appeal No(s). 237 of 2012)
Mohan Soni Appellant(s) versus Ram Avtar Tomar & Others Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/10/2012.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha.
Subject Index: Motor Vehicle accident — compensation claim under — the Supreme Court held that in the context of loss of future earning, any physical disability resulting from an accident has to be judged with reference to the nature of work being performed by the person suffering the disability — compensation enhanced.

2012 SCCL.COM 11(Case No: Criminal Appeal No(s). 104 of 2012)
State of M.P. & another Appellant(s) versus Ram Prakash Singh & another Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/10/2012.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha and Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L. Gokhale.
Subject Index: Inquiry Order — in challenge — a gang of four criminals escaped from the police custody with the help and connivance of the police officers and/or negligence/inaction of the guards escorting them and murdered 14 persons. The police started torturing the persons from Baghel community in the Gwalior district — writ petition filed and in the backdrop of consistent inaction on the part of the State Government in the matter the High Court asked the CBI to hold enquiry into the matter of escape of the criminals from the police custody and the role of the officers posted at Gwalior — the Supreme Court stayed operation of the order of the High Court and directed the Chief Secretary, Madhya Pradesh to appoint the Additional Chief Secretary to conduct the enquiry into the matter who already held the enquiry and submitted his report, therefore, the direction given by the High Court to refer the matter to CBI to hold an enquiry into the matter lost its relevance — impugned direction of the High Court set aside — appeal disposed.

2012 SCCL.COM 7(Case No: Arbitration Petition No(s). 11 of 2011)
Denel (Proprietory Limited) Petitioner(s) versus Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/9/2012.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar.
Subject Index: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — sections 11(4) & (6) — application under — for appointment of an independent Arbitrator — a contract was entered into between the parties for the supply of Base Bleed Units — disputes arose — within 30 days, DGOF did not himself commence the arbitration proceedings; nor did he appoint any Government servant as an arbitrator — hence, the petition — the contract is with Ministry of Defence. The arbitrator has been nominated by DGOF, who is bound to accept the directions issued by the Union of India. In fact, the mandate of the earlier arbitrator was terminated on the material produced before the Court, which indicated that the arbitrator was biased in favour of the Union of India — various notices issued by the arbitrator, none of which were received by the petitioner within time. Therefore, the petitioner was effectively denied the opportunity to present his case before the Sole Arbitrator — the materials on record indicated that it would not be unreasonable to entertain the belief that the arbitrator appointed by the respondent would not be independent, therefore, the Supreme Court proceeded to appoint an independent arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arose between the parties — petition allowed.

2012 SCCL.COM 16(Case No: Writ Petition (Civil) No(s). 533 of 2011)
V.K. Naswa Petitioner(s) versus Home Secretary, UOI & Others Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/9/2012.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar.
Subject Index: Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 32 — writ petition filed under — against the respondents for insulting the National Flag on several occassions and violating the norms of waiving of National Flag, as provided in the Flag Code 2002 — thus, sought relief for recovery of Rs.10 crores each for misusing National Flag for gaining undue mileage benefiting his commercial ends (yoga business) as well as the political gain drive during agitations and further to issue direction to the Central Government through Ministry of Law & Justice to revise the Flag Code of India 2002 and amend the same incorporating the amendment suggested by the petitioner himself — a factual controversy cannot be examined in a petition under Article 32 — the Supreme Court held that the petitioner already filed complaint before the authorities concerned. Thus, he cannot pursue the remedy simultaneously by filing the writ petition. More so, neither the Court can legislate, nor issue directions to the legislature to enact the law in a particular manner — petition dismissed on merits.

2012 SCCL.COM 8(Case No: Criminal Appeal No(s). 68 of 2012)
Rajesh Talwar and Dr. Mrs. Nupur Talwar Appellant(s) versus C.B.I (Delhi) & Anr Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/6/2012.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 302/34 and 201/34 — the order of the ld. Magistrate taking cognizance of the offences under against the appellants — in challenge — at the stage of taking of cognizance of offence, the Court has only to see whether prima facie there are reasons for issuing the process and whether the ingredients of the offence are there on record — no interference in the concurrent order of the Magistrate affirmed by the High Court — appeal disposed.

2012 SCCL.COM 4(Case No: Criminal Appeal No(s). 47-48 of 2012)
State of Punjab Appellant(s) versus Balwinder Singh and others Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/6/2012.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam and Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 304A, 337 and 279 — offences under — reduction of quantum of sentence — in challenge — collision of the vehicles due to rash and negligent driving of both the drivers of the truck and the bus — the Judicial Magistrate, convicted both the accused persons and directed them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- each, for the offences under IPC. However, the High Court, reduced the sentence of the accused persons to the period already undergone (15 days) and enhanced the fine to an amount of Rs. 25,000/- each — the Supreme Court held that merely because the fine amount has been enhanced to Rs.25,000/- each, is not a sufficient ground to drastically reduce the sentence, particularly, where five persons died due to the negligent act of both the drivers of the bus and the truck — impugned order of the High Court set aside and accused are further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each — appeals allowed.

2012 SCCL.COM 33(Case No: Civil Appeal No(s). 104 of 2012 with C.A. Nos. 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 114, 115, 116, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146 & 147 of 2012)
Adarsh Shiksha Mahavidyalaya & Others Appellant(s) versus Subhash Rahangdale and others Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/6/2012.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.
Subject Index: Teacher education system — Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed for issue of direction to the NCTE, State of M.P., Barkatullah University and others for ensuring proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher education system in various colleges run by different educational societies / entities or the institutions financed by Central / State Government or Union Territory Administration or the universities including the deemed universities and self-financed educational institutions established and operated by non-profit making societies and trusts registered within the State — directions issued by the High Court — in challenge — whether the High Court committed an error by entertaining the writ petition as public interest litigation — whether the impugned order is contrary to the rules of natural justice, i.e., audi alteram partem — whether the private institutions could have made admissions de hors the entrance examination conducted by the State Government — no — whether the students who had taken admission in unrecognized institutions or the institutions which had not been granted affiliation by the examining body have the right to appear in the examination — the respondent filed the writ petition to highlight grave irregularities committed by the Western Regional Committee of NCTE in granting recognition to private institutions who did not fulfill the mandatory conditions relating to financial resources, accommodation, library, laboratory and other physical infrastructure and qualified staff and admitted students who had either not passed the entrance test or had not appeared for the centralised counselling conducted under the directions issued by the State Government — the conclusions recorded by the High Court and the directions contained in the impugned order are of general application and do not target any particular college or institution — no recognition/permission can be granted to any institution desirous of conducting teacher training course unless the mandatory conditions enshrined in Sections 14(3) or 15(3) read with the relevant clauses of Regulations 7 and 8 are fulfilled and no institution can admit any student unless it has obtained unconditional recognition from the Regional Committee and affiliation from the examining body — appeals dismissed — directions issued.

2012 SCCL.COM 5(Case No: Civil Appeal No(s). 4495 of 2006)
Mohd. Ayub & Anr Appellant(s) versus Mukesh Chand Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/5/2012.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam and Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai.
Subject Index: Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 — section 21 — application under — for eviction of the respondent/tenant on the ground of bonafide requirement of the premises by the landlord — the Prescribed Authority dismissed the application holding inter alia that the appellants are financially sound and other properties were available to them whereas except the suit shops the respondent does not have any place for residence and business. However, without going into the aspect of comparative hardship, the High Court directed that only one room out of the four rooms should be handed over to the appellants by the respondent — hence, the appeal — the High Court rightly found the need of the appellants to be bona fide but has not given any reasons why only partial relief was being granted to the appellants — nothing on record to show that during the pendency of litigation the respondent made any genuine efforts to find out any alternative accommodation — the Supreme Court opined that the hardship appellants would suffer by not occupying their own premises would be far greater than the hardship the respondent would suffer by having to move out to another place — the respondent is directed to handover possession of all the rooms in his occupation to the appellants and granted six months time to vacate the premises in question — appeal allowed.

2012 SCCL.COM 15(Case No: Criminal Appeal No(s). 67 of 2012)
Munagala Yadamma Appellant(s) versus State of A.P. & Others Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/5/2012.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar.
Subject Index: Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 — section 3(1) r/w section 2A & B — detention order under — in challenge — the High Court held that under the normal laws, it would be difficult to check the activities of the detenue and, accordingly, the order of detention was justified — hence, the appeal — the offences complained of against the appellant are of a nature which can be dealt with under the ordinary law of the land. Taking recourse to the provisions of preventive detention is contrary to the constitutional guarantees enshrined in Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution and sufficient grounds have to be made out by the detaining authorities to invoke such provisions — detention order quashed — appeal allowed.

2012 SCCL.COM 6(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2012)
Rushikesh Tanaji Bhoite Appellant(s) versus State of Maharashtra & Ors Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/4/2012.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha and Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L. Gokhale.
Subject Index: Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 — detention order under — legality of — in challenge — the order releasing the detenu on bail in the crime registered on August 14, 2010 and the order relaxing the bail condition were passed by the Judicial Magistrate, much before the issuance of detention — non-placing and non-consideration of the material as vital as the bail order vitiated the subjective decision of the detaining authority — detention order set aside — appeal allowed.

2012 SCCL.COM 2(Case No: Civil Appeal No(s). 41 of 2012)
Coal Mines P.F. Commr. Tr. Board of Trustee Appellant(s) versus Ramesh Chandra Jha Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/4/2012.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar.
Subject Index: Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order XXVII Rule 5A — whether the Lower Appellate Court committed a serious error in dismissing the Respondent/Plaintiff's suit on the ground of non-joinder of the Union of India thereby upsetting the judgment and decree of the Trial Court without deciding the question as to whether the Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner is a public officer under the Union of India so as to attract the provisions of Order XXVII Rule 5A of the Code of Civil Procedure — it was not open to the First Appellate Court to re-open the question which had been decided by this Court, at least on the same submissions which had been made earlier that though the officer concerned was an employee of the Central Government, he no longer enjoyed the said status when he was discharging the functions of the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Coal Mines Provident Fund Scheme — the Supreme Court held that in view of the fact that the Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner has been held to be a public officer, it was necessary to join the Union of India as a party in the suit in view of the provisions of Order XXVII Rule 5A of the Code of Civil Procedure — appeal dismissed.

2012 SCCL.COM 1(Case No: Criminal Appeal No(s). 26 of 2012)
Yumman Ongbi Lembi Leima Appellant(s) versus State of Manipur & Ors Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/4/2012.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar.
Subject Index: National Security Act, 1980 — detention order passed against the appellant's husband under the provisions of — in challenge — the grounds of detention do not disclose any material which was before the detaining authority, other than the fact that there was every likelihood of detenue being released on bail in connection with the cases in respect of which he had been arrested, to support the order of detention — the FIRs in respect of which the Appellant's husband had been arrested relate to the years 1994, 1995 and 1998 respectively, whereas the order of detention passed against him almost after 12 years. There is no live link between the earlier incidents and the incident in respect of which the detention order had been passed — impugned detention order quashed — appeal allowed.