Show the cases, Nominal/Party Name wise
Show the cases, Date of Decision wise
LATEST CASES
(for last one month)
Total No. of Cases: 50

2015 SCCL.COM 379(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 6595 of 2015 (arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 15513 of 2015))
L.C. Hanumanthappa (Since Dead) Appellant(s) Represented By His Lrs. versus H.B. Shivakumar Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/26/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.F. Nariman.
Subject Index: Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 58 – declaration of title – suits filed for – the High Court dismissed the Original Suit on limitation stating that the original written statement filed on 16th May, 1990 clearly stated that the plaintiff did not have the necessary title to the suit schedule property, and as amendment of the plaint was moved long after 3 years, it was clearly time-barred – the appeal – Article 58 of the Limitation Act would apply to the amended plaint inasmuch as it sought to add the relief of declaration of title to the already existing relief for grant of permanent injunction – the question in relation to the doctrine of relation back insofar as it applies to amendments made under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC – to consider – the Supreme Court held that the doctrine of relation back would not apply to the facts of the case for the reason that the Court which allowed the amendment expressly allowed it subject to the plea of limitation, indicating thereby that there are no special or extraordinary circumstances to warrant the doctrine of relation back applying so that a legal right that had accrued in favour of the defendant should be taken away – appeal dismissed.

2015 SCCL.COM 378(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 6583 of 2015 (Arising out of CAD No.13923 of 2014))
Union of India & others Appellants versus 3989606 P, Ex-Naik Vijay Kumar Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/26/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Banumathi.
Subject Index: Disability pension – the order of the Tribunal allowing the application filed by the respondent observing that the respondent is entitled to get disability pension for 75% disability from the date of his invalidation – in challenge – respondent’s act of going towards the roof for smoking at his sister’s house and falling down at no stretch of imagination can be attributed to military service – the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the accident resulting in injury to the respondent was not even remotely connected to his military duty and it falls in the domain of an entirely private act and therefore the impugned orders cannot be sustained, thus, set aside – appeal allowed.

2015 SCCL.COM 377(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 2089 of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C) No. 6919 of 2008])
Vaish Aggarwal Panchayat Appellant versus Inder Kumar and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/25/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prafulla C. Pant.
Subject Index: Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VII Rule 11(d) – res judicata – suit for declaration – the defendant filed the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC stating that the suit is not maintainable as barred by res judicata – whether in the obtaining factual matrix, the High Court should have applied the principle of res judicata – to consider – the cause of action for filing the suit is different and the grounds urged in the suit, are also quite different – it is not prima facie discernible from the plaint that it lacks any cause of action or is barred by any law – the allegations in the plaint are absolutely different and there is an assertion that in the earlier suit a decree came to be passed because of fraud and collusion – the Supreme Court viewed that in the factual matrix there should have been a trial with regard to all the issues framed – impugned order of the High Court set aside and trial Court is directed to proceed with the suit – appeal allowed.

2015 SCCL.COM 385(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 3580 of 2005 with Civil Appeal No. 3584 of 2005)
Citibank N.A. Appellant versus Hiten P. Dalal & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/21/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikramajit Sen and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shiva Kirti Singh .
Subject Index: Compensation – by way of restitution – calculation of market value of bonds for the purpose of effective and satisfactory restitution – to consider – there is no dispute that on account of reversal of a money decree in favour of Citibank, the Citibank is required to restore back the monetary benefits it received under the decree against Canfina – the Supreme Court viewed that in the course of finding out the value of the bonds which are no longer available for restitution, the ld. Special Court committed a clear error of law in ignoring a relevant fact that the bonds in question were a tradable commodity on the stock market and its value could be easily ascertained either on the date when the bonds were handed over to the Citibank or at the time when the Citibank sold the bonds to third parties – sale of the bonds by Citibank to third parties at a verifiable rate not being under dispute, it is evidently unjust to saddle Citibank with liability to repay the possible gains made by the third party or subsequent purchasers of the bonds – impugned order passed by the Special Court set aside – Canfina is directed to refund an amount of Rs. 22, 14, 36, 756/- to the Citibank, in line with earlier orders, with interest @ 9% p.a. – appeals allowed.

2015 SCCL.COM 384(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 1081 of 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3611 of 2015) with Criminal Appeal No. 1082 of 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3612 of 2015) with Criminal Appeal No. 1083 of 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 4241 of 2015))
Central Bureau of Investigation Appellant versus Rathin Dandapat and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/21/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prafulla C. Pant.
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – section 167(2) – detention of an accused in the custody of police – the case relates to killing of nine persons and injuring large no. of villagers and it is alleged that the respondents and the other accused, after forming an unlawful assembly in the roof top of respondent No.1, committed the crime – whether no remand in police custody can be given to the investigating agency in respect of the absconding accused who is arrested only after filing of the charge sheet – to consider – the police remand can be sought under section 167(2) Cr. P. C in respect of an accused arrested at the stage of further investigation, if the interrogation is needed by the investigating agency – the High Court is not justified in upholding refusal of remand in police custody by the Magistrate, on the ground that accused stood in custody after his arrest under section 309 Cr. P. C – the impugned orders passed by the Magistrate, declining the police remand set aside – appeals allowed.  

2015 SCCL.COM 383(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 824 of 2013)
Vikram Singh @ Vicky & another Appellants versus Union of India & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/21/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 – section 364A – kidnapping or abduction for ransom – the appellant were tried, convicted and sentenced to death for commission of offences punishable under sections 302 and 364A of IPC – writ petition filed for striking down section 364A as ultra vires the Constitution to the extent the same prescribes death sentence for anyone found guilty and also for an order restraining the execution of the death sentence awarded to them – dismissal of writ petition – in challenge – whether the provisions of section 364A in so far as the same prescribes death or life imprisonment is unconstitutional on account of the punishment being disproportionate to the gravity of the crime committed by the appellants – no – the gradual growth of the challenges posed by kidnapping and abductions for ransom, not only by ordinary criminals for monetary gain or as an organized activity for economic gains but by terrorist organizations is what necessitated the incorporation of section 364A of the IPC and a stringent punishment for those indulging in such activities – the Supreme Court held that a sentence of death in a case of murder may be rare, but, if the Courts have, upon consideration of the facts and evidence, found that the same is the only sentence that can be awarded, it is difficult to revisit that question in collateral proceedings – appeal dismissed.

2015 SCCL.COM 381(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 860 of 2006)
Sri Malaprabha Co-OP Sugar Factory Ltd. Appellant versus State of Karnataka & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/21/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikramajit Sen and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shiva Kirti Singh.
Subject Index: Karnataka Excise (Manufacture and Bottling of Arrack) Rules, 1987 – Rule 17 – fixation of price of rectified spirit – the Respondent-State fixed the price of rectified spirit uniformly at Rs. 6/- per litre by Government Order dated 12.5.1992. While doing so, it had been indicated that the captive distilleries would be entitled to receive only Rs. 5/- per litre, and the balance Rs. 1/- per litre would be receivable by the Respondent-State – a demand for a sum of Rs. 13, 32, 000/- was raised by the Superintendent of Excise, Huballi – in challenge – the respondent-State made it incontrovertibly clear that it would permit the appellants to sell rectified spirit at the common fixed rate of Rs. 6/- provided it transferred Rs. 1/- per litre to the State. If the appellant was serious in questioning the legal capacity of the Respondent-State recover the said Rs. 1/- per litre, it perforce had to challenge the Government Order dated 12.5.1992. Having failed to do so it cannot, thereafter, challenge the demand which is predicted on the Government Order itself – appeal dismissed.

2015 SCCL.COM 380(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 6532 of 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO. 1640 of 2014))
Daljit Singh Grewal Appellant versus State of Punjab & others Respondents  
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/21/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.Gopala Gowda and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.A. Bobde.
Subject Index: Promotion – denial of – issue arose for consideration of promotion and quashing of instructions regarding the benchmark method of promotion – the appeal filed questioning the correctness of the action of the respondents in not giving promotion to the appellant to the post of Battalion Commander though he was entitled for the same and also challenged the judgment and orders passed in writ petition and also review petition – the downgrading of the performance of the appellant in his ACR for the relevant period by the respondent No.4 was not valid as the same was done without any authority and competence. The adverse entries in the ACR deprived the appellant of his right of promotion to the post in question and therefore, the said adverse entries in the ACRs against the appellant are not legal and valid – the appointment to the promotional post was to be made on seniority-cum-merit basis and the appellant fulfilled the requirement by securing 14 marks, as per the instructions in relation to all aspects entered in the ACR – order of denial of promotion to the appellant set aside – appeal allowed – directions issued.

2015 SCCL.COM 375(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 6770 of 2004 with Civil Appeal No. 4468 of 2006 with Civil Appeal No. 6434 of 2015 with Civil Appeal No. 2798, 4234 and 4281 of 2009 with 6429 of 2015 with 4893, 6084 and 8477 of 2011 with 732 of 2012 and 1627 of 2012 with 6430 of 2015 with 5841 of 2011 )
Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs and others Appellants versus M/s Larsen & Toubro Ltd. and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/20/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.F. Nariman.
Subject Index: Finance Act, 1994 – charge of service tax for composite works contract – whether service tax can be levied on indivisible works contracts prior to the introduction, on 1st June, 2007, of the Finance Act, 2007 which expressly makes such works contracts liable to service tax – to consider – unless the splitting of an indivisible works contract is done taking into account the eight heads of deduction, the charge to the tax that would be made would otherwise contain, apart from other things, the entire cost of establishment, other expenses and profit earned by the contractor and would transgress into forbidden territory namely into such portion of such cost, expenses and profit as would be attributable in the works contract to the transfer of property in goods in such contract – a work contract is a separate species of contract distinct from contracts for services simpliciter recognized by the world of commerce and laws as such, and has to be taxed separately as such there is no charge to tax of work contracts in the Finance Act, 1994. The said Finance Act lays down no charge or machinery to levy and assess service tax on indivisible composite work contracts – appeals of assessees allowed and of the revenue dismissed.

2015 SCCL.COM 374(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 6465 of 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) No.9266 of 2012) Madras Institute of Development with Civil Appeal No.6466 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.10022 of 2012))
Studies and another Appellants versus Dr. K. Sivasubramaniyan and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/20/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra.
Subject Index: Appointment – to the post of Associate Professor – appeal filed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court whereby the order passed by the ld. Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the respondent No.1 has been reversed and the order of the Appellant-Institute approving appointment of Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 to the post of Associate Professor has been quashed – the decision of the Academic Authorities about the suitability of a candidate to be appointed as Associate Professor in a research Institute cannot normally be examined by the High Court under its writ jurisdiction. Having regard to the fact that the candidates so selected possessed all requisite qualifications and experience and, therefore, their appointment cannot be questioned on the ground of lack of qualification and experience – the respondent, without raising any objection to the alleged variations in the contents of the advertisement and the Rules, submitted his application and participated in the selection process. It was only after he was not selected for appointment, turned around and challenged the very selection process – impugned order passed by the Division Bench set aside – appeals allowed.

2015 SCCL.COM 372(Case No: Writ Petition (C) No. 705 of 2014 with W.P.(C) No.700 of 2014, W.P.(C) No.707 of 2014, W.P.(C) No.784 of 2014, W.P.(C) No.862 of 2014, W.P.(C) No.523 of 2014, W.P.(C) No.799 of 2014, W.P.(C) No.819 of 2014, and C.A. No. 6481 of 2015 @ SLP(C) No.21765 of 2014, C.A. No. 6482 of 2015@ SLP (C) No.22755 of 2014, C.A. No. 6483 of 2015@ SLP (C) No.22756 of 2014, C.A. No. 6484 of 2015 @ SLP(C) No. 22757 of 2014 C.A. No. 6485 of 2015 @ SLP(C) No.22974 of 2014, C.A. No. 6486 of 2015 @ SLP(C) No.23512 of 2014, C.A. Nos. 6488-6489 of 2015 @ SLP(C) Nos.23528-29 of 2014, C.A. No. 6492 of 2015 @ SLP(C) No.23476 of 2014, C.A. Nos. 6493-6494 of 2015 @ SLP(C) Nos.24150-51 of 2014, C.A. No. 6509 of 2015 @ SLP(C) No.24154 of 2014, C.A. No. 6495 of 2015 @ SLP(C) No.24665 of 2014, C.A. No. 6496 of 2015 @ SLP(C) No.24913 of 2014, C.A. No. 6497 of 2015 @ SLP(C) No.25763 of 2014, C.A. No. 6498 of 2015 @ SLP(C) No.21517 of 2014, C.A. Nos. 6499-6500 of 2015 @ SLP(C) Nos.26296-97 of 2014, C.A. Nos. 6503-6504 of 2015 @ SLP(C) Nos.26768-69 of 2014, C.A. Nos. 6505-6506 of 2015 @ SLP(C) Nos.24754-55 of 2014, C.A. Nos. 6507-6508 of 2015 @ SLP(C) Nos.25468-69 of 2014, C.A. Nos. 6501-6502 of 2015 @ SLP(C) Nos.26758-59 of 2014, SLP(C) No.22785 of 2014, SLP(C) No.27034 of 2014 and Transfer Petition (C) No.1217 of 2014)
Royal Medical Trust (Regd) and another Petitioners versus Union of India and another Respondents  
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/20/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikramajit Sen.
Subject Index: Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 – section 10A – permission for establishment of new Medical College and for increase in intake – disapproval of applications by the Central Government in respect of Medical Colleges of the applicants for the academic year 2014-15 on the ground of infirmities/inadequacies in the infrastructure, facilities and faculty – refusal of Central Government and/or the MCI to undertake any fresh inspection for verification, for want of adequate time – writ petitions filed – the Statute recognizes that before any adverse decision is taken as regards the Scheme, the applicant must be afforded reasonable opportunity – the Scheme under section 10A itself contemplate stage wise achievement of annual targets and the requirements of reasonable opportunity to be afforded not only at the initial stage but also in cases of subsequent renewal and further that the opportunity must be afforded at both the stages namely by the MCI as well as by the Central Government. The Schedule under the Regulations must accommodate and provide for adequate time limits to take care of such eventualities – the MCI and the Central Government are directed to discharge their functions in accord with the concerned Regulations and the Statute – petition disposed.

2015 SCCL.COM 382(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 2508 of 2008)
M/s. Modern Hotel Appellant versus Commissioner of Excise & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/19/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikramajit Sen and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shiva Kirti Singh.
Subject Index: Excise licence – scope and interpretation of a proviso to rule 13A(5) of the Foreign Liquor Rules as in force at the relevant time in the State of Kerala – the issue falls for consideration – the factum of excise dues of one of the partners of the appellant and its subsequent payment under the Amnesty Scheme is not in dispute – the High Court held that a partnership firm is a totality of every partner and that the default of one of the partners can be taken into consideration for treating the firm as a default or even if only one of its partners continues to be in arrears of abkari dues – the Supreme Court viewed that since there was no challenge to the proviso to Rule 13A(5) of the Foreign Liquor Rules, the respondents were well within their rights to insist that at least 50% of the excise dues against the partners of the appellant was required to be paid in accordance with the proviso, to get the desired renewal – the Supreme Court held that it would be unjust to direct or refund of Rs. 50 lakhs on the premise that its recovery in the manner made is being questioned by the appellant – appeal dismissed.

2015 SCCL.COM 376(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 1079 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.8627 of 2014))
Sakharam Appellant versus State of Madhya Pradesh & another Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/19/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur, Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Gopala Gowda and Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi.
Subject Index: IPC, 1860 – section 325 – conviction and sentence of the appellant of the offence under – in challenge – a quarrel took place between the parties in which the appellant caused 2 blows on the head of PW-2 – the High Court partly allowed appellant’s appeal setting aside his conviction under section 302 IPC and modified his conviction under section 307 IPC as conviction under section 325 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years with a fine of Rs. 2, 000/- – the appeal – by perusal of X-Ray report, it is evident that PW-2 sustained fracture or dislocation of the bone which clearly falls in the category of grievous hurt, therefore, having regard to the nature of injuries and the X-Ray report, the High Court rightly convicted the appellant under section 325 IPC – the occurrence was a sudden fight and in a fit of passion the appellant inflicted injuries on PW-2 – conviction order confirmed, while the sentence of imprisonment of 7 years imposed on appellant reduced to 3 years – appeal partly allowed.

2015 SCCL.COM 370(Case No: Criminal Appeal Nos. 1786-1789 of 2009)
Ramvilas Appellant versus State of M.P. Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/18/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur and Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 – sections 302 r/w section 149, 324, 323 r/w section 149, 148 – conviction and sentence of the appellants for commission of the offences punishable under – in challenge – the conviction of the appellant and other accused is based mainly on the evidence adduced by six eye-witnesses (PWs 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 and 13) coupled with other corroborative evidence – Courts below recorded the concurrent findings of fact observing that the testimony of eye-witnesses is credible and trustworthy – the conviction of the appellant is based on the evidence of injured witnesses amply corroborated by the evidence of eye-witnesses and medical evidence – appeals dismissed.

2015 SCCL.COM 369(Case No: Criminal Appeal Nos. 1049-1050 of 2015 (@ SLP(Crl) Nos. 4099-4100 of 2015))
Raj Bala Appellant versus State of Haryana & Ors. Etc. Etc. Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/18/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prafulla C. Pant.
Subject Index: Reduction of sentence – the order of the High Court confirming the conviction of respondents under section 306 of the IPC, however, reducing the quantum of sentence to the period already undergone by them – in challenge – the High Court itself recorded that the appellants therein remained in custody only for a period of four months and twenty days – the Supreme Court held that once the offence under section 306 IPC is proved, there should have been adequate and appropriate punishment. A Court, while imposing sentence, has a duty to respond to the collective cry of the society – the reduction of sentence by the High Court to the period already undergone set aside and the order of sentence by the Ld. Trial Judge restored – appeal allowed.

2015 SCCL.COM 359(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 6081 of 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 25572 of 2014))
Saroj Kumar Appellant versus Union of India and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/18/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prafulla C. Pant .
Subject Index: Promotion – the case relates to the downgrading Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) of the appellant without giving him any opportunity – the Tribunal directed that the claim by the appellant for promotion be considered ignoring earlier uncommunicated entries of ACRs. whereas, the High Court by its impugned judgement set aside the order of the Tribunal – hence, the appeal – material on record showed that the ACRs have been communicated and representation has been rejected – the High Court rightly taken note of the fact that as conclusion of second round of litigation neither there was direction by the Tribunal nor by the High Court to ignore the entries in question (after rejection of the representation against it) for promotion of the appellant from the date when his juniors were promoted – order passed by the High Court upheld – appeal dismissed.

2015 SCCL.COM 363(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 10394-10396 of 2011)
M/s. Soorajmull Nagarmull Appellant versus State of Bihar & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/17/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikramajit Sen and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – section 17 – acquisition of land by invoking urgency provisions of section 17 – in challenge – the 1981 acquisition proceedings had not been withdrawn by the respondent State and the incontrovertible position that the Appellant had not challenged those proceedings, the impugned order passed by the High Court held that the possession of the land as well as the title thereof vested in the respondent-State, notwithstanding the avowedly delayed publication of the Award – the appeals – the 1981 acquisition in itself cannot be allowed to stand for its abject failure to comply with the requirements of section 11A of the LA Act, thus, no reason to allow the respondent-State to revive the lapsed acquisition – acquisition proceedings with regard to the subject lands lapsed – appeals allowed.

2015 SCCL.COM 365(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 6319 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.11809 of 2015) with Civil Appeal No.6320 of 2015 @ SLP(C)No.10539 of 2015 & Civil Appeal No. 6321 of 2015 @ SLP(C)No.11814 of 2015)
Joy Appellant versus Mani Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/14/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave and Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Gopala Gowada.
Subject Index: Settlement – the parties to the litigation settled their dispute amicably before the Mediator – the parties are directed to place the Terms of Agreement before the trial Court for appropriate orders – decree quashed.

2015 SCCL.COM 361(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 6086 of 2015 (@ SLP(C) No. 19380 of 2014))
State of Kerala & others Appellants versus M.K. Jose Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/14/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prafulla C. Pant.
Subject Index: Termination of contract – the correctness of the judgment passed by the High Court whereby the Appellate Bench reversed the decision of the Ld. Single Judge whereunder he declined to interfere with the order of the Secretary, Public Works Department, Road and Projects of the State terminating the contract awarded to the respondent and forfeiting the security deposit placed by the contractor for the work to the State and further stating that the work had been put an end to at the cost and risk of the contractor – in question – whether the Appellate Bench in intra-court appeal arising from a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, should have carried out the exercise that it has done and eventually quashed the order terminating the contract by the competent authority of a Department on the ground that it was passed on erroneous facts, for the respondent contractor, as per the Commissioner’s report, had done higher percentage of work – to consider – the High Court appointed a Commission to collect the evidence, accepted the same without calling for objections from the respondent and quashed the order of termination of contract. The procedure adopted by the High Court is quite unknown to exercise the powers under Article 226 in a contractual matter – impugned order passed by the Appellate Bench set aside – appeal allowed.  

2015 SCCL.COM 360(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 4905 of 2015)
Harihar Prasad Padarha Appellant versus M/s. Kanha Wilderness Ltd. Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/14/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave and Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Gopala Gowda.
Subject Index: Order – the allegation made in the appeal with regard to appeal being heard by less number of Members – impugned order quashed and matter remitted back for fresh hearing – appeal disposed.

2015 SCCL.COM 368(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 2086 of 2014)
State of Kerala and others Appellants versus S. Unnikrishnan Nair and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/13/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prafulla C. Pant.
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – section 482 – whether the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, is justified in quashing the FIR lodged against the respondents for the offences punishable under sections 182, 194, 195, 195A and 306 of the IPC in exercise of jurisdiction under section 482 of the Cr. P. C – to consider – it is the suicide note which forms the fulcrum of the allegations and the note, except saying that the respondents compelled him to do everything and cheated him and put him in deep trouble, contains nothing else ,therefore, it is difficult to hold that there has been any abetment by the respondents – the suicide note really does not state about any continuous conduct of harassment – the High Court is justified in quashing the proceeding, as no prima-facie case made out against the accused persons – appeal dismissed.

2015 SCCL.COM 367(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 812 of 2008)
Sunil Khergade Appellant versus State of Maharashtra Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/13/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel.
Subject Index: IPC, 1860 – section 302 r/w section 34 – punishment of murder with common intention – conviction and sentence of the appellant for commission of the offence punishable under – in challenge – evidence on record established that the deceased and the other members of the family were wholly unarmed, the appellant and his younger brother, who is the co-accused, both were in possession of arms, the appellant fetched the knife which had a wooden handle and 17 cms. Long blade portion with which the fatal injury was caused on the left side of the chest of the deceased – the trial Court, having regard to the evidence of PWs-1, 2 and 7, who were also injured witnesses and taking note of the nature and manner of the commission of the crime, convicted the appellant and his brother under section 302 r/w section 34 of IPC. The appellant was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life – order upheld – appeal dismissed.

2015 SCCL.COM 366(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 7373 of 2005 with C.A. No. 7374 of 2005)
Stantech Project Engg. Pvt. Ltd. Appellant versus Nicco Corporation Ltd. Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/13/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikramajit Sen and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shiva Kirti Singh.
Subject Index: Winding-up proceedings – impugned order passed by the High Court setting aside the Order passed by the Company Judge rejecting the plea of the respondent that the so-called concession made by the junior counsel should not be given curial recognition – in challenge – the Appellant filed winding-up petitions against the respondent on the asseveration that debts admittedly payable by the respondent to the petitioner remained outstanding even subsequent to the issuance of a statutory notice issued under section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 – the Company Judge had no alternative but to proceed for winding up of the respondent Company. The said junior Advocate of the respondent, displayed legal sagacity in getting the winding-up of the Company postponed and avoided the publication in the winding-up petition by praying for and obtaining leave to pay the debt in instalments – the respondent abused the judicial process in order to delay the discharge of an acknowledged debt for almost a quarter of a century, in which period it continued in business – appeals allowed.

2015 SCCL.COM 364(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 6165 of 2015 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.2198 of 2015) with Civil Appeal No. 6166-6167 of 2015 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.10148-10149 of 2015))
Vedica Procon Private Limited Appellant versus Balleshwar Greens Private Limited & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/13/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre.
Subject Index: Agreement of sale – sale/purchase of the property in liquidation – the Ld. Company Judge, on an application filed by the first respondent, by his order, recalled the order and set aside the sale made in favour of the appellant – the said order was challenged by the appellant before the High Court, the same was dismissed – hence, the appeals – the highest bid of the appellant was accepted by the Company Court and all the stake-holders of the Company in liquidation were heard before such an acceptance. Nobody even objected including the first respondent at that stage on any ground whatsoever – there is no specific format in which a sale conducted by the Official Liquidator is to be confirmed by the Company Court and the mere absence of the expression “that the sale is confirmed” in the order is not determinative of the question – the Official Liquidator himself understood the order to be an order not only accepting the highest bid of the appellant but also as an order confirming the sale in favour of the appellant, the fact that the first instalment of the payment of 25% of the sale consideration was accepted both by the Official Liquidator and the Company Court without raising any objection for the same and the fact that the first respondent withdrew its earnest money deposit without raising any objection regarding adequacy of the price offered by the appellant, clearly indicate that the sale in favour of the appellant was confirmed – appeals allowed.

2015 SCCL.COM 362(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 6168 of 2015 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 22176 of 2015))
Girishchandra Manubhai Patel Appellant versus Vedica Procon Private Limited & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/13/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre.
Subject Index: Title of the property – appeal filed for – appellant claims to be the owner of extent of 1 Acre and 22 Guntas of land, which according to him was given on lease to the Company in liquidation – the Supreme Court held that the appellant would be entitled to the consequential reliefs i.e. if the appellant succeeds in establishing his right or title or interest in any part of the property which is subject matter of sale in dispute, he would be entitled to appropriate amount in accordance with law from out of sale proceeds – no relief granted to the appellant at the stage.

2015 SCCL.COM 349(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 5821 of 2011)
K.K. Gohil Appellant versus State of Gujarat and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/12/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra.
Subject Index: Promotion – cancellation of higher pay scale to the appellant – impugned order in challenge – the higher pay scale was ordered to be granted to the appellant after completion of nine years but the same was withdrawn on the basis of earlier circular of 1994 – the High Court failed to consider the subsequent circular of 2004 and based on the circular of 1994, the order withdrawing the benefit was upheld – the appellant is entitled to the higher pay scale on completion of nine years of service – impugned order passed by the High Court set aside – appeal allowed.

2015 SCCL.COM 348(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 1028-1037 of 2005)
State of Tamil Nadu & another Appellants versus TVL. South Indian Sugar Mills Assn. & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/12/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikramajit Sen and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shiva Kirti Singh.
Subject Index: Administrative service charges – taxes/levies on industrial alcohol or rectified spirit – the respondents/writ petitioners assailed the legality of a demand of Rs.1/- per bulk litre of industrial alcohol manufactured by them – the Ld. Single Judge concluded that the increased demand of Rs. 1/- per bulk litre of industrial alcohol would amount to effecting an increase in recovery from 1/3rd to 2/3rd of total expenses incurred by the Excise Department which, ceased to be based on the principle of quid pro quo, therefore, directed the State to impose and collect only 50 paise per bulk litre – the Ld. Division Bench held that the collections made by the State by way of administrative service fee recovered even at the rate of 50 paise per bulk litre correspond to approximately 60% of the total expenditure of the Excise Department; thus, there was only an expenditure of 93.2 lakhs against which there was an estimated collection of administrative fee aggregating 11.73 crores which collection, therefore, was excessive – impugned order not interfered – appeals dismissed.

2015 SCCL.COM 347(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 5307-5308 of 2005)
Kalyan Chemicals Appellant versus Government of A.P. & others Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/12/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikramajit Sen and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shiva Kirti Singh.
Subject Index: Andhra Pradesh Denatured Spirit and Denatured Spirituous Preparations Rules, 1971 – the order of the High Court upholding the legality of the levy of an Administrative Fee at the rate of 50 paise per bulk litre or any other rate as may be fixed by the Government from time to time on industrial alcohol obtained from a distillery – in challenge – the Supreme Court upheld the findings of the High Court that the Subject Regulatory Fees intended to prevent the conversion of alcoholic liquor for industrial use to that for human consumption is legal, and need not be strictly quid pro quo as long as it is not excessive – appeals dismissed. 

2015 SCCL.COM 343(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 4417 of 2003)
D.R. Enterprises Ltd. Appellants versus Assistant Collector of Customs and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/12/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri and Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana.
Subject Index: Customs Act, 1962 – custom duty on concessional rate – appeal filed for – the appellant endeavoured to avail the concessional rate of custom duty on the import of Web Printing Machine under Open General Allowance with the aid of Notification No. 114/80-CUS – the order of the High Court by which it refused to allow the appellant import of aforesaid Machine on concessional rate of custom duty – in challenge – no evidence produced on record to establish modifications of the folder base of the Machine or model in question, thus, Machine cannot be said to be capable of taking additional load, therefore, it cannot give higher speed so as to give higher production to the extent of more than 35, 000 per hour – the burden to proof was on the appellant to establish that the Machine imported by it generates more than 35,000 composite impressions or copies per hour, which the appellant failed to do so – appeal dismissed.

2015 SCCL.COM 342(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 6106-6108 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 4987-4989 of 2015))
S.M. Asif Appellant versus Virender Kumar Bajaj Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/12/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur and Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Gopala Gowda and Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi.
Subject Index: Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XII Rule 6 – decree of eviction against the appellant-tenant – in challenge – the Supreme Court held that Order XII Rule 6 CPC is discretionary and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. In the suit for eviction filed by the respondent-landlord, appellant-tenant admitted the relationship of tenancy, but resisted respondent-plaintiff’s claim by setting up a defence plea of agreement to sale and that he paid an advance of Rs. 82.50 lakhs. When the defendants have raised objection which go to the root of the case, it would not be appropriate to exercise the discretion under O XII Rule 6, CPC. Mere admission of relationship of landlord and tenant cannot be said to be an unequivocal admission to decree the suit under O XII R 6, CPC – impugned orders set aside and matter remitted to the Rent Controller for consideration of the matter afresh – appeals allowed.

2015 SCCL.COM 341(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 5020-5022 of 2005)
M/s K.C.P. Ltd. Appellant versus Government of A.P. & others Respondents  
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/12/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikramajit Sen and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shiva Kirti Singh.
Subject Index: Andhra Pradesh Rectified Spirits Rules, 1971 – constitutional validity of – under challenge – the High Court upheld the legality of 1971 Rules and found the requirement of obtaining a license and the payment of Excise duty and Pass fee for exporting rectified spirit to be legal – the Supreme Court held that while State Governments are not competent to impose taxes/levies on industrial alcohol, fee charged for services rendered to prevent the diversion and conversion of industrial alcohol for human consumption is permissible and legal; such fee need not be charged strictly on quid pro quo basis and it will pass legal muster so long as it is not excessive, therefore, the 1971 Rules themselves are not illegal, but rather are well within the purview of the Constitutional powers of the State Government – appeals disposed.

2015 SCCL.COM 358(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 6055-6056 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 27113-27114 of 2013))
M/s. Tech Invest India (Pvt.) Ltd. Thr. Major Shareholder Rajiv Gosain Appellant versus M/s. Assam Power & Electricals Ltd. and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/11/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra.
Subject Index: Companies Act, 1956 – the order passed by the High Court dismissing the appeal and review application filed by the appellant Company challenging the order confirming the sale and handing over the assets of the appellant-Company to the respondent – in challenge – the appellant Company took a loan of Rs. 6 lakhs from respondent No.1, however, the appellant Company initiated measures to shut down its operations and sell its assets and issued closure notices, without repaying the dues to the respondent. The Auction was held and the sale in favour of respondent No.3 was confirmed – application filed for rejecting the auction sale and for re-auction, was not considered – hence, the appeals – the objections raised by the appellant were not properly considered as the objections were not heard on merit and the auction sale was confirmed – illegality and irregularity committed in the auction sale of the property, the entire process is vitiated – the Company Judge failed to exercise its judicial discretion to see that the properties are sold at a reasonable price – impugned judgement and order passed by the Company Judge and the High Court set aside. The Official Liquidator is directed to recover the possession of the properties and proceed with a fresh auction after obtaining the fresh valuation report and fixing the reserve bid – appeals allowed.

2015 SCCL.COM 357(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 5525-5526 of 2005)
M/s Fibre Boards (P) Ltd. Bangalore Appellant versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Banglore Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/11/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.F. Nariman.
Subject Index: Income Tax Act – section 54G – claim of exemption under – on the entire capital gain earned by the appellant from the sale proceeds of its erstwhile industrial undertaking situated in Thane in view of the advances so made being more than the capital gain made by it – the order of the High Court denying the exemption contained in section 54G to the appellant – in challenge – the Supreme Court viewed that on omission of section 280ZA and its re-enactment with modification in section 54G, section 24 of the General Clauses Act would apply, and the Notification of 1967, declaring Thane to be an urban area, would be continued under and for the purposes of section 54A – the assessee, under section 54A(1), is given a period of 3 years after the date on which the transfer takes place to purchase new machinery or plant and acquire building or land or construct building for the purpose of his business in the said area. Advances paid for the purpose of purchase and/or acquisition of the plant and machinery, and land and building would certainly amount to utilization by the assessee of the capital gains made by him for the purpose of purchasing and/or acquiring the aforesaid assets – impugned judgement of the High Court set aside – appeals allowed.

2015 SCCL.COM 356(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 6054 of 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 32319 of 2013))
Chief Controlling Revenue Authority Appellant versus Costal Gujarat Power Ltd. and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/11/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra.
Subject Index: Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958 – sections 4, 5 and 6 – liability of the respondent to pay deficit stamp duty – the respondent executed an “Indenture of Mortgage for Delayed After Assets Deed” with the State Bank of India, the said security trustee, mortgaging its assets – the order of the High Court holding that State of Gujarat is not entitled to recover any additional stamp duty based upon its perception of the legislative intendment behind section 5 of the Act – in challenge – the instrument of mortgage came into existence only after separate loan agreements were executed by the borrower with the lenders. Had the borrower entered into a separate mortgage deed with the financial institutions in order to secure the loan there would have been a separate document for distinct transactions, thus, it can safely be regarded as 13 distinct transactions falls under section 5 of the Act – the respondent is liable to pay deficit stamp duty together with interest as directed by the revenue authorities – impugned order passed by the High Court on the Reference set aside – appeal allowed.

2015 SCCL.COM 355(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 6718 of 2004 with Civil Appeal Nos. 8340-8342 of 2011 Civil Appeal No.________ of 2015 (Arising out of Slp (Civil) No. 32342 of 2011) Civil Appeal No. 632 of 2013)
M.C.D. & another Appellants versus M/s. Mehrasons Jewellers (P) Ltd. Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/11/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.F. Nariman.
Subject Index: A) Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 – section 116 – determination of rateable value of lands and buildings assessable to property taxes – the present appeals refer to assessment years post 1994 and are said to be in a factual scenario where after the amendment of 1988 to the Delhi Rent Control Act, the Delhi Rent Control Act does not apply – the Supreme Court opined that the appeal falls within the exception created by the Central Bank judgement, namely cases where the Municipal Corporation of a particular State itself lays down as to how annual value is to be determined, therefore, held that for assessments made after the 1994 bye-laws came into existence, such assessments shall be governed by these bye-laws alone – writ petition remanded back to High Court for determination afresh – appeals disposed. B) Delhi Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 2003 – section 116E – determination of annual value of covered space of building and of vacant land – the Supreme Court held that an assessment that has not been finalized in all cases where an appeal is pending before the District Judge as also in all cases which have not become “final” in the sense that the appellate authority or the High Court or Supreme Court (after 2003), in respect of an assessment of property tax prior to 2003, remands the matter for fresh determination, would all be covered by the language of section 116G(2) – appeals dismissed.

2015 SCCL.COM 344(Case No: WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.494 OF 2012 WITH TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) NO.151 OF 2013 TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) NO.152 OF 2013 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.829 OF 2013 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.833 OF 2013 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.932 OF 2013 TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO.312 OF 2014 TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO.313 OF 2014 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.37 OF 2015 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.220 OF 2015 TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO.921 OF 2015 CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.144 OF 2014 IN WP(C) 494/2012 CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.470 OF 2015 IN WP(C) 494/2012)
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & another Petitioners versus Union of India & others Respondents  
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/11/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.A. Bobde and Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Nagappan.
Subject Index: Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 21 – right to privacy – petition filed on the ground that the very collection of biometric data for the “Aadhar Card Scheme” propounded by the Government of India is violative of the “right to privacy” under Article 21 – the Supreme Court opined that the cases on hand raise far reaching questions of importance involving interpretation of the Constitution, therefore, to give a quietus to the kind of controversy raised, the jurisprudential correctness of the subsequent decisions of this Court where the right to privacy is either asserted or referred be examined and authoritatively decided by a Bench of appropriate strength – ordered accordingly. Interim Order: The Supreme Court in view of the balance of interest, till the matter is finally decided by the larger Bench, directed the Union of India or the UIDA to proceed in the following manner – (i) the UOI shall give wide publicity in the electronic and print media including radio and television networks, that it is not mandatory for a citizen to obtain an Aadhar card; (ii) The production of Aadhar card will not be a condition for obtaining any benefits otherwise due to a citizen; (iii) The Unique Identification No. or the Aadhar card will not be used by the respondents for any purpose other than the PDS Scheme and in particular for the purpose of distribution of food grains, etc, and cooking fuel, LPG Distribution Scheme; (iv) The information about an individual obtained by the Unique Identification Authority of India while issuing an Aadhar card shall not be used for any other purpose, except as may be directed by a Court for the purpose of criminal investigation.

2015 SCCL.COM 354(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 5471 of 2005 with C.A.Nos.5788-5789 of 2005)
Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd. Appellant versus Custodian & another Respondents  
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/10/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikramajit Sen and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shiva Kirti Singh.
Subject Index: Special Courts (Trial of Offences relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 – section 11 – tenancy rights of the appellant over the premises bearing Flat No.2 belonging to respondent No.2, the owner and landlord came to be attached for satisfying the liabilities of the appellant – the appellant was directed to file an undertaking to hand over the vacant possession of the premises – no infirmity in the impugned order – the respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 65 lakhs obtained for surrender of tenancy rights of the appeal along with additional amount of Rs. 13, 92, 000/- (consideration and rental amount received by the landlord) – appeal dismissed.

2015 SCCL.COM 352(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 626-627 of 2008)
A.N. Sachdeva (dead) by LRs. & others Appellants versus Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak & another Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/10/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra.
Subject Index: A) M.D. University Pension Scheme, 1997 – retiral benefits – whether services rendered by the appellants in Kurukshetra University/Punjab University is qualifying service for the purpose of pension and can be added to the services rendered by them in the respondent No. 1 University – in question – the Division Bench of the High Court by way of impugned order, dismissed the writ application on the ground that in view of Rule 4(vii) of the Pension Scheme, 1997, services rendered by the appellants in Punjab University/Kurukshetra University cannot be counted – the appeals – the appellants have served in Punjab University/Kurukshetra University/M.D. University without any break. M.D. University, prior to its establishment, was the regional centre of Kurukshetra University – the Supreme Court held that merely because a person has been appointed and others have been absorbed/allocated makes no difference as to the service rendered – the appellants were held entitled for the benefit of counting the services rendered in Punjab University/Kurukshetra University as qualifying service for the purpose of pension subject to fulfilment of the conditions specified in the Memorandum – appeals allowed. B) Pension – the retiral benefit is not an ex gratia payment but a payment in recognition of past service, thus, discrimination could not have been made between those employees who have been absorbed/allocated are entitled to count their services as qualifying service for the purpose of pension and not those who have been appointed directly.

2015 SCCL.COM 346(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 1045 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 6116 of 2015))
Ashish Gopaldas Alias Gopikisan Lohiya Appellant versus State of Maharashtra Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/10/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph.
Subject Index: Anticipatory bail – appeal filed for – the appellant’s wife had died after seven years of his marriage and that too at a place which was far away from the place where the appellant was at the time of accident – protection with regard to the anticipatory bail granted to the appellant – appeal allowed.

2015 SCCL.COM 345(Case No: Writ Petition (C) No. 404 of 2015)
Government Mohindra Instt. of Information Technology & another Petitioner(s) versus All India Council For Technical Education & others Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/10/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph.
Subject Index: Permission – to the Petitioner-College with regard to initiation of new course – application filed for grant of approval to the Petitioner-College for setting up a new technical institute to run MCA course – the Standing Appellate Committee passed a final order rejecting the Petitioner’s application on account of certain deficiencies – hence, the petition – the fact not disputed that all deficiencies, pointed out to the Petitioner’s College, had been substantially removed – the Supreme Court opined that for a negligible defect, there was no reason for rejecting the application submitted by the Petitioner-College – the final order passed by the Standing Appellate Committee set aside and the respondent No.1 is directed to reconsider the case of the Petitioner-College to grant the necessary permission with regard to initiation of new course – writ petition allowed – relief granted.

2015 SCCL.COM 353(Case No: Criminal Misc. Petition No. 7526 of 2015 in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 1446 of 2004)
Ram Narain Petitioner versus State of U.P. Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/7/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal.
Subject Index: Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 – section 7(a) – plea of juvenility – IPC, 1860 – section 302 – the appellant/applicant was convicted for committing the murder and thus, was sentenced for life imprisonment – application filed to release of the applicant from the prison on the ground that the applicant has already served the sentence of more than 10 years – the appellant falls within the definition of “juvenile” under section 2(k) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 and he can raise the plea of juvenility at any time and before any court as per the mandate of section 7(a) of the Act, 2000 – the Supreme Court held that the applicant should get the benefit under the said Act since he was a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence – direction issued to release the applicant-petitioner – appeal allowed.

2015 SCCL.COM 351(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 5805 of 2005 with C.A.Nos.5803 and 5804 of 2005)
Laxmi Fibres Ltd. Appellant versus A.P. Industrial Dev. Corpn. Ltd. & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/7/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikramajit Sen and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shiva Kirti Singh.
Subject Index: State Financial Corporations Act, 1959 – whether the Official Liquidator can claim any power or jurisdiction in itself to adjudicate and quantify the claim of statutory Corporations such as Respondent No.1, A.P. Industrial Development Corporation and respondent No.2, A.P. State Financial Corporation when the Company Judge has permitted them to stand outside the liquidation proceeding subject to certain conditions under which the respondent Corporations may pursue the powers available to them under section 29 of 1959 Act – the question of law arose for consideration – the Supreme Court viewed that the rights of a financial Corporation available under the SFC Act have been compromised or impeded by the amendment of 1985 in the Companies Act, only to a limited extent and for a limited purpose of securing the rights of the workers for distribution of their wages as pari passu charges – the control of the Company Judge and the Official Liquidator if authorized, can extend only to ensure that the aforesaid purpose of section 529A is effectively achieved. If the Company represented by the Official Liquidator has reasons to be aggrieved by claims made by a financial Corporation under the SFC Act, its remedy would be to initiate appropriate civil proceedings to challenge such claim or debt of a State financial Corporation before an appropriate forum and not to assume jurisdiction to sit in adjudication and decide entitlement of the financial Corporation when it has opted to stand outside the liquidation proceeding as a secured creditor – appeal dismissed.

2015 SCCL.COM 350(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 7251-7302 of 2000)
M/s. Tata Chemicals Ltd. Appellant versus Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/6/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra and Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.Gopala Gowda.
Subject Index: Central Excise Act, 1944 – exclusion/inclusion of cost of packing in determining the value of good for payment of excise duty under section 4 – the appellant calls in question the assailability of judgment and order passed by the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has not accepted the letters to bring out the arrangement for the return of durable packing, namely, gunny bags, for reuse as packing material for selling the soda ash in bulk – the Supreme Court concluded that the letters spell out an arrangement between the assesse and the buyers. Once the existence of arrangement and choice to return the packing material for re-use are established for the period in question, the packing cost would not be included and the appellant shall be given the benefits – orders passed by the forum below set aside and matter remitted to the adjudicating authority – appeals allowed. (DIPAK MISHRA, J.) Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 – whether the price of the gunny bags should be included in the assessable value of the soda ash for the purpose of levy of excise under the Act – in question – the burden to prove that the value of the gunny bags is not inclusive and not excisable with the value of the soda ash, lies on the appellant and it has miserably failed to do so as the soda ash are sold in bulk in the gunny bags at the factory gate to the wholesale market and such packing is indispensible for the transport and preservation of soda ash – the appellant failed to establish an arrangement as per section 4(4)(d)(i) of the Act and mere suggestion of the same regarding the return of used gunny bags to the appellants by the buyers does not establish the terms and conditions that are prerequisites for establishing an arrangement of return of the gunny bags to the appellant – the Tribunal rightly rejected the claim of the appellant, hence, it is liable to pay the tax liability for the same – appeals dismissed. (V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.)

2015 SCCL.COM 325(Case No: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 306 of 2015)
Sree Balaji Medical College and Hospital and another Petitioners versus Union of India and another Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/6/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph.
Subject Index: Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 – section 11 – recognition of medical qualifications granted by universities of medical institutions of India – once a medical qualification granted by a medical institution in India is recognised by the Central Government, whether recognition is also required for the admission capacity which is increased from time to time or whether permission of the Central Government alone is required for such an increase in the admission capacity in the recognised course – the question of law arose for consideration – the Act does not provide for recognition of the admission capacity in a recognised course. Even the Regulations 2000 also do not contemplate such a requirement – the Supreme Court held that in case of two medical colleges (1) S.P. Medical College, Bikaner, Rajasthan and (2) Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi, permission was granted for increasing admission capacity without recognition of the existing capacity, as increased from time to time, therefore, no justification whatsoever in denying relief to the petitioner – writ petition allowed – directions issued.

2015 SCCL.COM 324(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 1468 of 2004 with Civil Appeal No. 7386 of 2005)
M/s Jayaswal Neco Ltd. Appellant versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/6/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri and Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana.
Subject Index: Central Excise Rules, 1944 – Rule 173 G(1)(e) – demand of interest calculated on the dues of excise duty which were allegedly deposited late – whether the excise duty was in fact deposited late and therefore interest would be charged – to consider – merely because Rule 173 G recognises the payment of duty utilising the Cenvat Credit also and providing for payment of duty through open and current account only during the suspended period will not have the effect of taking away the benefit conferred by a separate rule since even without Rule 173 G by virtue of Rule 49 read with Rule 57 A a right has already conferred on the assessee to utilise the input credit for payment of duty at the time of discharging his liability to pay duty on the final product as provided for in the Rules. Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2000 is amended by inserting sub-Rule 3A vide Notification No.17/05-C.E.(N.T.) which specifically provides that in case of default in making payment of duty, the assessee shall be required to pay excise duty for each consignment by debit to the account current and not by utilising Cenvat Credit – the Supreme Court took view in respect of unamended provision that was applicable at the relevant time – appeals allowed.

2015 SCCL.COM 323(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 5924 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.27674 of 2011) with Civil Appeal No. 5925 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.36316 of 2011) with Civil Appeal No. 5926 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.38436 of 2012) with Civil Appeal No. 5927 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5789 of 2013))
Baleshwar Dayal Jaiswal Appellant versus Bank of India & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/5/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice ADARSH KUMAR GOEL.
Subject Index: Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 – whether the Appellate Tribunal under the “SARFAESI Act” has the power to condone delay in filing an appeal under section 18(1) of the said Act – in question – applicability of proviso to section 20(3) of the RDB Act, 1993 to the disposal of an appeal by the Appellate Tribunal under section 18(2) of the SARFAESI Act – to consider – section 18(2) makes it clear that the Appellate Tribunal under the SARFAESI Act has to dispose of an appeal in accordance with the provisions of the RDB Act. Even if power of condonation of delay by virtue of section 29(2) of the Limitation Act were held not to be applicable, the proviso to section 20(3) of the RDB Act is applicable by virtue of section 18(2) of the SARFAESI Act – in the absence of an express provision for condonation, when section 18(2) expressly adopts and incorporates the provisions of the RDB Act which contains provision for condonation of delay in filing of an appeal, cannot be read as excluding the power of condonation – appeals disposed.

2015 SCCL.COM 333(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 7189 of 2005)
M/s. Jaswal Neco Ltd. Appellant versus Commissioner of Customs Visakhapatnam Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/4/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.F. Nariman.
Subject Index: Anti-dumping duty – levy of interest on – failure of appellant to fulfil its export obligation in terms of the exemption notification – penalty imposed – the Supreme Court held that as the final Notification dated 27.10.1998 has been superseded by the Notification dated 19.5.2000, the appellant would have had to pay Anti-dumping duty at the rate of US$ 24.95 per metric tonne as indisputably it falls within item No.7 of the said Notification – the bond executed showed that no interest is payable on any of the customs duties that are due from the appellant – penalty imposed on the appellant set aside – appeal allowed.

2015 SCCL.COM 322(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 9875-9881 of 2013)
M/s Japan Airlines Co. Ltd. Appellant versus Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/4/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman.
Subject Index: Income Tax Act, 1961 – issue involved relates to the deduction of tax at source – whether TDS to be deducted under section 194-C or under section 194-I of the Act – to consider – the charges taken from the aircrafts for landing and even for parking of the aircrafts are not dependent upon the use of the land per se, but for various other facilities extended by the AAI to the Airlines, and therefore, it cannot be treated as ‘rent’ within the meaning of section 194-I of the Act.

2015 SCCL.COM 373(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 983 of 2015)
Parhlad and another Appellant versus State of Haryana Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/3/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prafulla C. Pant.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 – sections 376(2)(g), 363 – conviction and sentence of the appellants/accused for commission of the offences under – in challenge – the High Court opined that the prosecutrix had no idea about the evil design of accused, her uncle and she proceeded with him in good faith and under compulsive circumstances she was raped by the accused persons and, therefore, there was really no consent, thus, affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court – hence, the appeal – the ossification test opined that the age of the prosecutrix might be 16-17 years, however, the High Court recorded that the said piece of evidence was not beyond reproach inasmuch as it had not depicted the true situation as the eruption of teeth, no. of teeth and many other aspects were not observed by the doctor conducting the ossification test – the prosecutrix deposed that she was in a totally helpless situation and despite her resistance she was sexually abused. Therefore, the consent, apart from legal impermissibility, cannot be conceived of – the Supreme Court held that regard being had to the gravity of the offence, reduction of sentence indicating any imaginary special reason would be an anathema to the very concept of rule of law – appeal dismissed being, sans stratum.

2015 SCCL.COM 332(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 5874-5875 of 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 1624-25 of 2014))
Mohan Singh & others Appellants versus The Chairman Railway Board & others Respondents  
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/3/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikramajit Sen and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prafulla C. Pant.
Subject Index: Factories Act, 1948 – section 46 – regularization of service – whether the existing canteen at Moradabad Division of the Northern Railway i.e. , the subject Canteen, is located in a ‘Factory’ within the meaning of section 46 – whether the services of the staff employed in the subject Canteen ought to be regularized – to consider – the ld. Single Judge held that since the subject Canteen at Moradabad has been operational for over 70 years, by then catering to more than 900 employees, and in the absence of any other canteen in the Moradabad Division, the Railways could not be permitted to take advantage of their failure to comply with the requirements of section 46 of 1948 Act and treat this canteen at Moradabad as a ‘Non-Statutory Canteen’. The Division Bench reversed the order of the ld. Single Judge – the appeal – the fact not controverted that each of the 5 units of the Northern Railways, including the Moradabad Division, is managed by a respective Divisional Railway Manager, thus, for the purposes of section 2(n) of the Act, it can be fairly inferred that the DRM, by virtue of being in control of the affairs of Moradabad Division, should be deemed to be the ‘occupier’ of that unit of the Northern Railways – the subject canteen is a ‘Statutory Canteen’ under the Factories Act, 1948 – directions issued.

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