Show the cases, Nominal/Party Name wise
Show the cases, Date of Decision wise
LATEST CASES
(for last one month)
Total No. of Cases: 16

2014 SCCL.COM 423(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 1902 of 2014)
Narendra Appellant versus State of Rajasthan Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 9/2/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Banumathi.
Subject Index: India Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 302 and 309 — conviction under — the death of deceased was not premeditated and the act of the accused causing death of Nathi, appears to be in furtherance of the understanding between them to commit suicide and the consent of the deceased and the act of the accused falls under Exception 5 of Section 300 IPC. Since the accused intentionally caused the death; the appellant is found guilty under Section 304 Part I IPC — the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC is modified and the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part I IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the period already undergone by him and the appeal is allowed in part.

2014 SCCL.COM 422(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 8414-8415 of 2014)
Vireshwar Singh and others Appellants versus Municipal Corporation of Delhi and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 9/2/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal.
Subject Index: Regularisation in Service — the appellants are General Duty Medical Officers (GDMO) Grade-II who were appointed on ad hoc basis between 1986 and 1989. They are aggrieved by the denial of their claim to regularization with effect from the dates of their initial appointments. Regularization granted from the date of the recommendations of the Union Public Service commission namely, 24.07.1998 as approved by the High Court of Delhi by means of the impugned order dated 05.07.2011 has been called into question in the present appeal — any departure from the views expressed and conclusions reached in Dr. Anuradha Bodi will not be necessary or justified.

2014 SCCL.COM 418(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 8373 of 2014)
Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Appellant versus Tata Projects Ltd. Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 9/1/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shiva Kirti Singh.
Subject Index: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — proceedings under — in respect of second issue relating to interest, learned senior counsel has confined the claim of the appellant only against grant of pre-Award interest on the basis of clause 1.15.5 of the Tender Document/Agreement — the appellant is not liable to pay any pre-Award interest and the interest @ 10.5% p.a. shall be payable by the appellant only from the date of Award till the date of payment on the Award amount now found payable, if any.

2014 SCCL.COM 425(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 7128-7129 of 2011)
M/s. Navodaya Mass Entertainment Ltd. Appellant versus M/s. J.M. Combines Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/26/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose .
Subject Index: Award of the Arbitrator — the dispute between the parties has been adjudicated upon by the Arbitrator and the award has been published. The Division Bench of the High Court has found that the award cannot be said to be perverse or that there is any cogent reason to set aside the same — the scope of interference of the Court is very limited. Court would not be justified in reappraising the material on record and substituting its own view in place of the Arbitrator’s view. Where there is an error apparent on the face of the record or the Arbitrator has not followed the statutory legal position, then and then only it would be justified in interfering with the award published by the Arbitrator. Once the Arbitrator has applied his mind to the matter before him, the Court cannot reappraise the matter as if it were an appeal and even if two views are possible, the view taken by the Arbitrator would prevail.

2014 SCCL.COM 421(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 1842-1844 of 2014)
Balwan and others Appellants versus State of Haryana Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/26/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur, Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Nagappan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 148,149,302,307,449,323 and 216 and in addition under Section 25 of Arms Act,1959 — trial under — the appeal preferred by the appellant Satbir Singh in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) no.6674 of 2012 is allowed and the conviction and sentences imposed on him is set aside and he is acquitted of the charges. The other two appeals in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) no.6673 of 2012 and Special Leave Petition (Criminal) no.6384 of 2012, are dismissed.

2014 SCCL.COM 419(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 8151 of 2014)
M/s Paradeep Phosphate Ltd Appellant versus Paradeep Phosphate Mazdoor Union and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/26/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.A. Bobde.
Subject Index: Contract labour — no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order by which the High Court directed the appellant to implement the notification abolishing the contract labour and to regularize the service of the workmen — since the decisions in the writ petitions have reached finality, such question cannot be reagitated in another writ petition between same parties as the question will be hit by the principles of res judicata.

2014 SCCL.COM 426(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 10264-10266 of 2013)
Balwant Rai Saluja and another Appellants versus Air India Ltd and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/25/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu, Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra.
Subject Index: Workmen's status — whether the workmen engaged in statutory canteens, through a contractor, could be treated as employees of the principal establishment — the learned Judges differed in their opinion regarding the liability of the principal employer running statutory canteens and further regarding the status of the workmen engaged thereof. The learned Judges differed on the aspect of supervision and control which was exercised by the Air India Ltd. - respondent No. 1, and the Hotel Corporations of India Ltd.-respondent No. 2, over the said workmen employed in these canteens. The learned Judges also had varying interpretations regarding the status of the HCI as a sham and camouflage subsidiary by the Air India created mainly to deprive the legitimate statutory and fundamental rights of the concerned workmen and the necessity to pierce the veil to ascertain their relation with the principal employer — the appellants-workmen could not be said to be under the effective and absolute control of Air India. The Air India merely has control of supervision over the working of the given statutory canteen. Issues regarding appointment of the said workmen, their dismissal, payment of their salaries, etc. are within the control of the HCI. It cannot be then said that the appellants are the workmen of Air India and therefore are entitled to regularization of their services —Held there is no parity in the nature of work, mode of appointment, experience, qualifications, etc., between the regular employees of the Air India and the workers of the given canteen — the appellants-workmen cannot be placed at the same footing as the Air India’s regular employees, and thereby claim the same benefits as bestowed upon the latter — the workers engaged by a contractor to work in the statutory canteen of a factory would be the workers of the said factory, but only for the purposes of the Act, 1948, and not for other purposes, and further for the said workers, to be called the employees of the factory for all purposes, they would need to satisfy the test of employer-employee relationship and it must be shown that the employer exercises absolute and effective control over the said workers.

2014 SCCL.COM 430(Case No: Civil Appeal No.(s). 6471 of 2014)
Tolya etc. Appellants versus State of M.P. and another etc. Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/22/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal.
Subject Index: Land Revenue Code,1959 — Section 250 — proceedings under — initiated for restoration of the property in favour of the appellants, who were illegally dispossessed and a notice to that effect was issued to the respondent for directing him to hand over the land to the appellants, failing which the allotment shall be cancelled. The respondent then moved the Civil Court by filing suits for declaration of ownership in respect of the said property which was dismissed by judgment dated 19.11.1998 — appeal filed by the respondent against the said judgment was stood dismissed on 17.3.1999. The respondent then filed Second Appeal before the High Court which was eventually allowed in terms of judgment and order dated 5.8.2004 and the Judgment and Orders passed by the trial court and the appellate court were set aside — in the instant case the land, which was declared surplus land, was allotted by the State in purported exercise of power under Section 35 of the said Act giving Bhumiswami right to the appellants. The said allotment was made in the year 1973. Within two years from the date of the said allotment, the land was purchased by the respondent by sale deed dated 4.7.1975, which, according to the appellants, was without consideration and the respondent in connivance with the other persons managed to keep the appellants out of possession. Prima facie, therefore, the sale deed alleged to have been executed by the appellants in favour of the respondent on 4.7.1975 is null and void and the same does not confer any right, title or interest in favour of the respondent-Sattar Khan — the trial court and the first appellate court, therefore, correctly recorded a finding that the sale deed, said to have been executed by the appellants in favour of the respondent, is null and void and is without consideration.

2014 SCCL.COM 407(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 1808 of 2014 With Criminal Appeal No. 1807 of 2014)
Pulsive Technologies P. Ltd. Appellant versus State of Gujarat and others         Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/22/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Smt. Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai and Hon'ble Justice Mr. N. V. Ramana.
Subject Index: Negotiable Instruments Act — Sections 138 and 142 — criminal complaint filed under by the appellant pending on the file of CJM for offences under — quashed by the Gujarat High Court — appeals — the High Court has relied on M.M.T.C. Ltd. and Modi Cements and yet drawn a wrong conclusion that inasmuch as cheque was dishonoured because of “stop payment” instructions, offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act is not made out. The High Court observed that “stop payment” instructions were given because the complainant had failed to discharge its obligations as per agreement by not repairing/replacing the damaged UPS system — whether complainant had failed to discharge its obligations or not could not have been decided by the High Court conclusively at this stage. The High Court was dealing with a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code for quashing the complaint. On factual issue, as to whether the complainant had discharged its obligations or not, the High Court could not have given its final verdict at this stage. It is matter of evidence. This is exactly what this Court said in M.M.T.C. Ltd. Though the High Court referred to M.M.T.C. Ltd., it failed to note the most vital caution sounded therein — the High Court also erred in quashing the complaint on the ground that the contents of the reply sent by the accused were not disclosed in the complaint. Whether any money is paid by the accused to the complainant is a matter of evidence. The accused has ample opportunity to probabilis his defence. On that count, in the facts of this case, complaint cannot be quashed.

2014 SCCL.COM 424(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 822 of 2012 With Criminal Appeal No. 867 of 2013, Criminal Appeal No. 589 and 1781 of 2014)
Raju @ Devendra Choubey Appellant versus State of Chhatisgarh Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/21/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Mishra and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.A. Bobde.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code 1860 — Section 302 read with Section 34 and 120B — conviction under — appeal — the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of Mahesh beyond reasonable doubt. There is no evidence of his having played any part in the crime. He was merely seen by the witness as standing outside the house when the witness came home — Criminal Appeal No. 867 of 2013 is allowed and Criminal Appeal Nos. 822 of 2012, 589 of 2014 and Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 3737 of 2014 are dismissed.

2014 SCCL.COM 420(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 433-434 of 2006)
M/s. Gira Enterprises and another Appellants versus Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/21/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K Sikri.
Subject Index: Customs Act, 1962 — Section 130(E) — statutory appeals under — the appellants imported two consignments of “2-4-6 Tricloro 1- 3-5 Triazine” aggregating 74.10 MT from China under two Bills of Entry, the cost of which is declared by the appellants to be SG $ 750/- PMT equivalent to US $ 500/- PMT. The goods were provisionally assessed and allowed clearance on 17.9.1994 — in the absence of any material produced by the Revenue in proof of the alleged comparable imports at a higher value, the impugned order which eventually confirmed the original order of assessment by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs dated 31.3.2001 cannot be sustained — the impugned order and the original assessment order are therefore, set aside. However, it will be open to the respondent(revenue) to proceed against the appellants herein pursuant to the show cause notice dated 25.9.2000 in accordance with law.

2014 SCCL.COM 408(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 5198 of 2008)
Singh Ram (D) Thr. L.Rs. Appellant versus Sheo Ram and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/21/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur, Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Nagappan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel.
Subject Index: Limitation Act, 1963 — Article 61 of the Schedule appended to the Act — application of — by the impugned judgment, the Full Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, considered the question "whether there is any time limit for usufructuary mortgagor to seek redemption?” and decided the said question in the negative — in cases where distinction in usufructuary mortgagor’s right under Section 62 of the T.P. Act has been noted, right to redeem has been held to continue till the mortgage money is paid for which there is no time limit while in other cases right to redeem has been held to accrue on the date of mortgage resulting in extinguishment of right of redemption after 30 years — special right of usufructuary mortgagor under Section 62 of the T.P. Act to recover possession commences in the manner specified therein, i.e., when mortgage money is paid out of rents and profits or partly out of rents and profits and partly by payment or deposit by mortgagor. Until then, limitation does not start for purposes of Article 61 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act. A usufructuary mortgagee is not entitled to file a suit for declaration that he had become an owner merely on the expiry of 30 years from the date of the mortgage.

2014 SCCL.COM 429(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 920 of 2011)
Satvir Singh Appellant versus State of Delhi through CBI. Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/20/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra and Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Gopala Gowda.
Subject Index: Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 7 — conviction under — acquittal set aside by the High Court — exercise of appellate jurisdiction by the High Court to reverse the judgment and order of acquittal is not only erroneous but also suffers from error in law and liable to be set aside — judgment and order of acquittal restored.

2014 SCCL.COM 427(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 7796-7797 of 2014)
Krishna Kumar Rastogi Appellant versus Sumitra Devi Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/20/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prafulla C. Pant.
Subject Index: Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 — Section 21(1)(a) — application under — for vacating the shop as required by the appellant for his son — merely for the reason that some witness has stated that the landlord attempted to sell the property his statement cannot be said to be reliable, as has been believed by the High Court or the Appellate Court, unless such fact is supported with documentary proof. There appears no document on record to support the bald statement of the witness Vijay Kumar Singh to dislodge the case of bonafide requirement of the shop claimed by the appellant for his son who was unemployed — considering the facts and circumstances of the case, court allows the respondent / tenant to vacate the premises by 31st December, 2014 whereafter the landlord/appellant shall be at liberty to get executed the order dated 21st September, 1999 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Addl. Civil Judge (S.D), Nagina. However, there is no order as to costs — appeal allowed.

2014 SCCL.COM 417(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 1771 of 2014)
Shivgiri Associates and others Appellants versus Metso Mineral (India) Pvt. Ltd Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/20/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikramajit Sen.
Subject Index: Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 13 — this Appeal assails the Order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana holding that since the notice as contemplated in Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 had been dispatched from Gurgaon, Haryana and additionally, a response thereto was dispatched to and received at Gurgaon, Courts at Gurgaon possessed jurisdiction to entertain and decide the Complaint. In the impugned Judgment, several precedents have been mentioned and decisions of this Court, namely, K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan (1999) 7 SCC 510 and Harman Electronics Private Limited v. National Panasonic India Private Limited (2009) 1 SCC 720 have been analysed and discussed — as Courts at Gurgaon do not possess territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act solely because, on the instructions of the Respondent, a legal notice of demand has emanated from that city. The Complaint be returned to the Complainant/Respondent for refiling in the appropriate Court at Bangalore, Karnataka. As mentioned in Dashrath Rupsingh, if the Complaint is re-filed in the appropriate Court in Bangalore within 30 days, it shall be deemed to have been filed within limitation. The interim orders stand recalled, accordingly.

2014 SCCL.COM 412(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 7839-7840 of 2014)
Akalakunnam Village Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. and another Appellants versus Binu N. and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/20/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal.
Subject Index: Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules and circulars issued under Rule 18(2) — no force — in the contention of the appellants regarding availability of alternate remedy by way of filing an Arbitration case under section 69 of the Act since in Courts opinion dispute between the writ petitioners and the Bank does not come within the provisions of this Section — the Bank has failed to conduct written examination and interview as per the then existing guidelines issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Indisputably, the respondent writ petitioners moved the High Court challenging the circulars immediately after the notification and prior to the conduct of examination — Supreme Court concurs with the decision of the High Court and do not find any merit whatsoever, in both the appeals, which are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

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