Show the cases, Nominal/Party Name wise
Show the cases, Date of Decision wise
LATEST CASES
(for last one month)
Total No. of Cases: 32

2016 SCCL.COM 56(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 461-462 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.29680-29681 of 2010))
Venkatesh Construction Company Appellant versus Karnataka Vidyuth Karkhane Limited (Kavika) Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/20/2016.
Judge(s): Hon'ble the Chief Justice T.S. Thakur, Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri and Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi.
Subject Index: Work Order – claim for the work done – execution of the contract between the parties for constructing a compound wall along the boundary line of Kavika and also for constructing underground sump, shed to store useful laminations and also core assembly shop for the works. However, the respondent asked the appellant to stop the work in between till the new designs are given by the respondent – the appellant filed suit making claim of Rs. 30lakhs for the work already completed, towards the extra earth work, stocking of materials and also liquidated damages and others – the trial Court decreed the suit and directed the defendant-respondent to pay in all a sum of Rs. 3,23,000/- with interest 12% p.a. to the appellant, however, the High Court reversed the judgment of the trial Court – the appeal – held that when the evidence and material clearly depict the change of nature of work involved and when extra work to be done was also admitted by DW-1, parties cannot be expected to go for a revised agreement/contract – the High Court reversed the decree passed by the trial Court without discussing oral and documentary evidence and several grounds raised before the trial Court – impugned judgment set aside and decree passed by the trial Court restored with the modification of reduction of interest @ 6%p.a. – appeals allowed.  

2016 SCCL.COM 53(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 3193 of 2006)
Union of India & another Appellants versus HBL Nife Power Systems Ltd. Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/20/2016.
Judge(s): Hon'ble the Chief Justice T.S. Thakur and Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi.
Subject Index: Submarine batteries – for the Indian Navy – the Government was processing the request by the Navy to purchase Submarine batteries. Since only M/s. Exide Industries Ltd. was then the only approved supplier of all types of Submarine batteries, the Defence Ministry gave approval to issue ‘Request For Proposal’ to M/s. Exide Industries Ltd. for supplying eleven sets of Submarine batteries – writ petition filed by the respondent claiming that it should be issued a request for proposal as well, as it was registered for some other product namely torpedo batteries – the order passed by the High Court directing the Union of India to issue an advertisement in leading newspapers having wide circulation inviting tenders for the submarine batteries mentioning the detailed technical specifications and thereby proceed to select the best product in accordance with law – in challenge – the Submarine batteries claimed to have been developed by the respondent were neither developed under the aegis of the DGQA nor the Govt. paid for development of the prototype cells – Advertisements are issued calling for tenders only for common use items which are normally available in the open market with a wide range of sources. Submarine batteries do not fall under the category of common use items – the High Court did not keep in view the policy of the Govt. and the mandatory requirement of DGQA being associated with the development of Submarine batteries which is a critical defence spare part – impugned order of the High Court set aside – appeal allowed.  

2016 SCCL.COM 52(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 430 of 2016 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.14444 of 2009))
Jagatjit Industries Limited Appellant versus The Intellectual Property Appellate Board & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/20/2016.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.F. Nariman.
Subject Index: Trade Marks Act, 1999 – section 125 – interpretation of – suit for infringement of a trademark – where proceedings for rectification of the register are pending before the filing of the suit for infringement in which the defendant pleads that the registration of the plaintiff’s trademark is invalid, such proceedings may be made either before the Registrar or before the Appellate Board, in view of section 57(1) and (2) of the Act. But, if rectification proceedings are to be instituted after the filing of such suit for infringement in which the defendant takes the plea that registration of the plaintiff’s trademark is invalid, then rectification proceedings can only be taken before the Appellate Board and not before the Registrar. Trademark – validity of the registration – respondent No. 4 applied for and was granted registration of the trademark in more than 50 countries and has been selling “BLENDERS PRIDE” whisky in India through its licence. The appellant applied for registration of an identical trademark “BLENDERS PRIDE” and a trademark registration certificate issued to him – a show cause notice issued to the appellant and the Registrar concluded that the impugned mark was registered by inadvertence/error and that it was proposed to rectify the register under section 57(4) of the Trademark Act, 1999 by removing the mark referred to. The appellant was directed to return the registration certificate wrongly issued forthwith, and further directed not to use the said certificate of registrar in respect of the “BLENDERS PRIDE” trademark in any manner for any purpose and in any proceedings – writ petition filed – the Appellate Board concluded that the grant of registration was in contravention of the provisions of the Act – no injustice done by the Appellate Board in directing de novo hearing of the case.  

2016 SCCL.COM 60(Case No: I.A. Nos. 4 & 5 in Civil Appeal No. 6158 of 2013)
National Highways Authority of India Applicant/Appellant versus M/s NCC- KNR (JV) Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/19/2016.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit.
Subject Index: Interest rate – on the decretal amount withdrawn by the respondent – interlocutory application filed for – the entitlement of the respondent to the decretal amount stood negated and the appeal was allowed in favour of the appellant – the respondent had reaped the benefits of decretal amount for more than three years, therefore, the respondent is directed to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the amount in question namely Rs. 70,65,039/- from the date of withdrawal till the date of actual payment – I. As disposed.

2016 SCCL.COM 59(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 2016 (Arising from the SLP(Crl.) No. 2082 of 2015))
Surender @ Kala Appellant versus State of Haryana Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/19/2016.
Judge(s): For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Dahiya,Adv. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen,Adv.  .
Subject Index: NDPS Act, 1985 – section 18 – conviction of the appellant under – for being in possession of 1kg. of opium without any permit or licence – the appellant was apprehended on suspicion. The personal search of the appellant resulted in recovery of opium from the possession of the appellant – the appellant along with the case property was produced before PW-3 who verified the fact and put his own seal impression on the sample as well as on the remainder – the search of the appellant was conducted in the presence of and under the instructions of PW-4. The extracts of deposition of other prosecution witnesses show that it was not PW-6 alone who was involved in the investigation – appeal dismissed.

2016 SCCL.COM 58(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 49 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 10404 of 2014))
Parveen Appellant versus The State of Haryana Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/19/2016.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Gopala Gowda and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit.
Subject Index: Reduction in sentence – appeal filed for – attempt to commit robbery/dacoity when armed with deadly weapon – conviction and sentence of the appellant for commission of the offences under sections 398, 401 of IPC, 1860 and section 25 of Arms Act – the accused/appellants had already undergone custody for over 3 and a half years – the appellants were sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment under section 398 IPC, which is the minimum sentence – no relief can be granted to the appellant – appeal dismissed.

2016 SCCL.COM 57(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.7437 of 2013))
Nankaunoo Appellant versus State of U.P. Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/19/2016.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur, Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri and Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 – section 302 – punishment of murder – conviction and sentence of the appellant-accused for commission of the offence under – in challenge – PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 gave consistent version about the occurrence that the appellant fired at the deceased with ‘country-made pistol’ which he was carrying in his hand. Nothing substantial was elicited from the witnesses to discredit their testimony – the weapon used and the manner in which attack was made and the injury was inflicted due to pre-meditation clearly establish that the appellant intended to cause the injury. However, the prosecution failed to prove from the doctors that the gunshot injury on the inner part of the left thigh caused rupture of any important blood vessel and that it was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death – the conviction of the appellant under section 302 IPC is modified as conviction under section 304 Part I IPC – appeal partly allowed.

2016 SCCL.COM 55(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 373 of 2016 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) No.4185 of 2007) with Civil Appeal No.374 of 2016 @ SLP(C) No.4186 of 2007 Civil Appeal No.375 of 2016 @ SLP(C) No.5060 of 2007 Civil Appeal No.376 of 2016 @ SLP(C) No.5061 of 2007 Civil Appeal No.377 of 2016 @ SLP(C) NO.5077 of 2007 Civil Appeal No.378 of 2016 @ SLP(C) No.5160 of 2007 Civil Appeal No.379 of 2016 @ SLP(C) No.31547 of 2008)
S.P. Krishnappa & others Appellants versus Secy., Deptt.of Revenue & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/19/2016.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman.
Subject Index: Acquisition of land – of the appellants/landowners – the land owners have been litigating for quite long with regard to their claims, interest and possession of the land in question – it is directed to allot a site of 4000 sq. ft. to the appellants free of cost and free from all encumbrances in Marasandara Malur Taluk per acre or part thereof not exceeding 50 cents – appeals disposed.  

2016 SCCL.COM 54(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 354 of 2016 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 7553 of 2008) with Civil Appeal No. 355 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 27588 of 2008))
State of Haryana Appellant versus Eros City Developers Pvt. Ltd. and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/19/2016.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prafulla C. Pant.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – the order passed by the High Court quashing the notifications issued under sections 4 and 6 of the 1894 Act, by the State of Haryana regarding acquisition of land measuring 129 Kanals 14 marlas in Village Lakarpur, District Faridabad – in challenge – the subject land was stated to have been acquired for the purpose of expansion and systematic development of Surajkund Tourist Complex which included development of parking area adjacent to the Surajkund Tourist Complex near annual Surajkund Fair – personal benefit must give way to public interest and the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot be invoked which would block public interest for private benefit – the High Court is incorrect in holding that the State has not acted bona fide, after 1992 acquisition proceedings were dropped – impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court set aside – appeals allowed.  

2016 SCCL.COM 51(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 371 of 2016 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) No.17347/2010))
Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Appellant versus Misri Yadav & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/19/2016.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman.
Subject Index: Continuity in service/back wages – the only issue arose with regard to – writ petition filed against the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal holding that the punishment of reduction of 2 increments will be sufficient for the misconduct, thus, directed reinstatement of the respondent No.1 with 50% back wages – the workman had been reinstated and has crossed the age of superannuation – respondent No.1 is granted continuity of service from the date of dismissal except back wages between 10th April, 1982 and 12th July, 2010 and the workman is granted 50% of the back wages from the date of order of the Tribunal – appeal disposed.  

2016 SCCL.COM 50(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 361 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10951 of 2014))
M/s Metal Seam Co. of India (P) Ltd. Appellant versus M/s Avadh Delicacies & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/19/2016.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Gopala Gowda and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit.
Subject Index: Allotment of industrial plot – the judgment and order passed by the High Court setting aside the order of allotment – in challenge – requisite notices were issued to respondent No.1 and that it was afforded adequate opportunity before cancellation of allotment – nothing placed on record, no licence is adverted to nor is it shown how and in what manner respondent No.1 started its activity of manufacturing PVC pipes – the appellant has been having allotment of three sheds namely B-6, C-1 and C-2 in its favour in the same industrial Estate. Thus, no special equities are in its favour and no case is therefore made out for allotment of concerned shed to the appellant – the authorities are directed to conduct public auction or invite tenders for allotment of the concerned shed at the present market value – directions issued.

2016 SCCL.COM 49(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 360 of 2016 (Arising from the SLP(Civil) No.527 of 2015))
State of Gujarat and another Appellants versus Shree Ratnakar Enterprise Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/19/2016.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Gopala Gowda and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit.
Subject Index: Allotment of land – application filed before the appellant-State for grant of lease of land admeasuring 1500 acres for the purposes of manufacturing salt – rejection of application on the ground “Land not available as asked for” – almost six years after the disposal of revision, the respondent preferred application in the High Court for quashing the order passed by the revisional authority and to issue appropriate direction to allot land as prayed for – the Single Judge rejected the application and held that the respondent itself remained indolent in pursuing its remedy and because of such delay and latches no indulgence could be shown in favour of the respondent. The Division Bench reversed the said order – the appeal – the stand of the appellant-State is very clear and categorical that there was no land available at Village Mundra. The application having been rejected by the District Collector, revision was preferred more than 5 years later. The revision was rejected on the ground of delay and was taken up in challenge before the High Court again after delay of 5 years – the order of the Division Bench of the High Court set aside and that passed by the Single Judge restored – appeal allowed.

2016 SCCL.COM 47(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9344 of 2014))
Bobbili Ramakrishna Raju Yadav & others Appellants versus State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. By Its Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P. Hyderabad, A.P. & another Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/19/2016.
Judge(s): Hon'ble the Chief Justice T.S. Thakur Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri and Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi .
Subject Index: Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – section 6 – the order passed by the High Court declining to quash the proceedings against the appellants No. 1 to 6 under – in challenge – the appellants are also facing criminal prosecution for the offence under sections 498A, 304B IPC and under sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act – there are no specific allegations against appellants 2 to 6 (parents-in-law) that the dowry articles were entrusted to them and that they have not returned the dowry amount and the articles to their daughter-in-law. Giving of dowry and the traditional presents at or about the time of wedding does not in any way raise a presumption that such a property was thereby entrusted and put under the dominion of the parents-in-law of the bride or other close relations so as to attract ingredients of section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act – the Supreme Court held that even though the criminal proceedings under section 6 is independent of the criminal prosecution under sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, in the absence of specific allegations of entrustment of the dowry amount and articles to appellants 2 to 6, continuation of the criminal proceeding against them is not just and proper, thus, quashed – appeal partly allowed.  

2016 SCCL.COM 48(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 1219 of 2009)
State through Narcotics Control Bureau Appellant versus Yusuf @ Asif & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/18/2016.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra.
Subject Index: Acquittal – of the respondents of the offence under section 8(c) r/w sections 21, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 – impugned order passed by the High Court – in challenge – seizure of two jute hand-bags containing 26 packets from the lorry in possession of the appellants – the trial Court convicted the respondents, however, the High Court acquitted them on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove that the seized articles were in fact sent for chemical analysis due to the discrepancy in Seal number – the appeal – the High Court had not considered the other material on record which according to trial Court established identity of sample sent for chemical examination with the contraband which was seized, and has also overlooked the effect of forwarding memo to go down which contained seal No. 12, and effect of remanding Magistrate endorsement – impugned order set aside and case remitted to the High Court to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law – appeal disposed.

2016 SCCL.COM 46(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 288-289 of 2016 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.33583-33584 OF 2012))
Chairman, Odisha Joint Entrance Examination Appellant versus Jasobanta Nayak and Others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/18/2016.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra and Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana.
Subject Index: Admission – into the engineering course – in physically handicapped category – the respondent filed a certificate issued from the District Head Quarters Hospital, Balasore, Odisha which mentioned that he was visually disabled by 40%, thus, to be considered in the physically handicapped category. However, the Board constituted as per the stipulations prescribed in the prospectus, found that the respondent No.1 had 20% visual disability and not 40% – the Medical Board has been constituted as per the norms of the prospectus and it has clearly recorded its opinion as regards the disability of vision of the respondent. Therefore, the High Court was not justified in interfering with the selection process in exercise of writ jurisdiction and declaring the disability of the respondent No.1 at 40% and to consider his case in the category of physically handicapped persons – appeals allowed.  

2016 SCCL.COM 45(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 575 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 21 of 2016))
Ramesh Chandra Bhandari Appellant versus Ram Singh Salal Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/18/2016.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre.
Subject Index: U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 – section 21(1)(a) – appellant/landlord filed application under – against the respondent seeking his eviction from the suit premises on the ground of appellant’s bona fide need for starting a business for his son who is physically disabled – the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the appellant-landlord thereby granting the decree of eviction against the respondent in relation to the suit shop, but at the same time further granting two years’ time to the respondent to vacate the suit shop – the appeal – the Supreme Court held that in the absence of any justifiable cause alleged by the respondent to prove extreme hardship and further in the absence of any statutory provision or any contract between the parties to that effect, there was no justification on the part of the High Court to exercise its discretion and grant two years’ time to the respondent to vacate the suit shop – impugned order modified to the extent that the respondent is granted time up to “31st August, 2016” to vacate the suit shop subject to the respondent depositing with the appellant the entire arrears of rent up to date – appeal allowed.  

2016 SCCL.COM 44(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 286 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.8906 of 2011))
M/s Rahman Industries Pvt. Ltd. Appellant versus State of U.P. and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/18/2016.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman.
Subject Index: Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – the Government is well within its jurisdiction to see whether there exists a dispute worth referring for adjudication. The Govt. has to satisfy itself, after applying its mind to the relevant factors and satisfy itself to the existence of dispute before taking a decision to refer the same for adjudication. Timely Payment of Wages Act, 1978 – the impugned order passed by the High Court quashing the order of the Labour Court while directing that in case, any such matter brought before the Government, the Govt. will refer it for adjudication before the Labour Court – in challenge – the grievance of the appellant is that there is peremptory direction by the High Court to refer the dispute raised by the workmen for adjudication, virtually taking away the discretion on the part of the Govt. to look into the issue as to whether there is a referable dispute at all – impugned order passed by the High Court set aside to the extent that there is a mandatory direction for referring the issues raised by the workman for adjudication – appeal allowed.  

2016 SCCL.COM 43(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 285 of 2016 [@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 16102 of 2011])
Pattabiram Nadargal Iyyakiya Sangam & others Appellants versus N.Natesan Nadar & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/18/2016.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman.
Subject Index: Election – the appellants’ main apprehension appears to be that on account of injunction granted by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. III, Poonamallee, Tamil Nadu in the judgment and decree dated 29.02.2008 that they may not be in a position to participate in the affairs of the Society including the elections thereof of the Pattabiran Nadargal Iyyakiya Sangam – direction issued to the Registrar of the Society to conduct fresh elections to the Society.  

2016 SCCL.COM 42(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 284 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP ( C) No. 4639 of 2015))
Kasamsha Ramjanisha Diwan Appellant versus Gujarat State Wakf Board and another Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/18/2016.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman.
Subject Index: Trust property – inter se dispute amongst the Trustees of the Bala Pir Trust – the ld. Single Judge though was of the view that the disputes should be worked out before the Civil Court, yet remanded the matter to the Gujarat State Wakf Board. The Division Bench modified that part of the order passed by the ld. Single Judge and vacated the order on remand – the appellant is permitted to work out the remedy before an appropriate forum and initiate the process – appeal disposed.  

2016 SCCL.COM 41(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 283 of 2016 [@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 7246 of 2015])
Subhash Agarwal & others Appellants versus State of Haryana & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/18/2016.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – sections 4 and 6 – quashing of acquisition notifications issued under – writ petition filed for – the High Court in a cryptic manner dismissed the writ petition holding that the acquisition has been done more than 37 years ago, no ground for interference is made out as the acquisition proceedings are already complete – impugned judgment set aside and the writ petition remanded to the High Court to be considered on merits – appeal disposed.  

2016 SCCL.COM 40(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 282 of 2016[@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 21956 of 2014])
Arun Manohar Dange and another Petitioners versus Special Land Acquisition Officer, Raigad, Alibag Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/18/2016.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman.
Subject Index: Land acquisition – determination of just compensation for the land acquired from the appellants – whether there should be 75% deduction for development charges – to consider – there was evidence available to the effect that the acquired land can be utilised for setting up of a housing colony and that there was overall growth in and around the municipality. Thus, the market value having been fixed by the High Court at Rs. 445/- per sq. meter – the purpose of acquisition was for water filtering shed. The land was in ‘No Development Zone’ and further deduction of 10% was in any way unjustified. Therefore, limit the total deduction to 33% + 10% – appeal allowed.  

2016 SCCL.COM 39(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 167 of 2007)
M/s Boorugu Mahadev & Sons & another Appellants versus Sirigiri Narasing Rao & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/18/2016.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre.
Subject Index: A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 – section 10 – eviction petition filed against the respondents under – on the grounds viz, default in payment of monthly rent from 01.06.1987 till the time of eviction petition and secondly denial of the appellant’s title to the suit premises – the Rent Controller dismissed the petition filed by the appellant, however, the Appellate Court set aside the said order and directed the respondents to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the suit premises to the appellants – the High Court restored the order of the Rent Controller – the appeal – the appellants proved their ownership through their predecessor-in-title on the strength of sale deed of the suit premises whereas the respondents failed to prove their defence. More so, the respondents committed a wilful default in payment of monthly rent and its arrears, therefore, the first Appellate Court was justified in allowing the eviction petition – impugned order passed by the High Court set aside and that of the first Appellate Court restored – appeal allowed.

2016 SCCL.COM 34(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 1964 of 2008)
M/s Ganapathy & Co., Bangalore Appellant versus The Commissioner, Income Tax Bangalore Respondent  
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/18/2016.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prafulla C. Pant.
Subject Index: Income Tax Act, 1961 – disallowance of Service charges for the Assessment year 1984-85 – the assessee claimed the benefit of disallowance of the service charges paid to M/s. Universal Trading Co. – the Assessing Officer disallowed the said claim – the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in favour of the assessee was reversed by the High Court on the ground that the ld. ITAT did not address itself to a very fundamental issue that had arisen before it, namely, effect of the failure of the assessee to produce evidence in support of the services claimed to have been rendered by UTC during the Assessment Year in question i.e. 1984-85 – impugned order in challenge – the difference in the approach between the ld. Tribunal and the High Court, is not one relating to determination of new or additional facts but was merely one of emphasis on facts on which there is no dispute. This is surely an exercise that was within the jurisdiction of the High Court in the exercise of its reference power under the provisions of the Act as it then existed – appeal dismissed.

2016 SCCL.COM 29(Case No: Contempt Petition No. 245 of 2014 in Civil Appeal No. 6736 of 2013)
Anuj Joshi & another Petitioners versus Chief Conservator of Forests & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/15/2016.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit.
Subject Index: Contempt of Court Act, 1971 – sections 2(3) and 15 r/w Article 129 of the Constitution of India – contempt petition filed under – alleging violation of directions contained in judgment and order dated 13.08.2013 passed by this Court in Alaknanda Hydro Power Company Ltd. vs. Anuj Joshi & others (C.A. No. 6736/2013 with C.A. No. 6746-6747/2013) – the respondent No.1 submitted that the concerned Vishnugad Pipalkoti Project was cleared as far back as on 02.06.2006, and the stage 1 clearance in respect of 80.507 Hectare of forest land was accorded by MoEF on 03.06.2011 subject to fulfilment of certain conditions and that upon compliance of the conditions, final approval for transfer of forest land was much before the pronouncement of the judgment and order dated 13.08.2013 – the alleged contemnors Nos. 1 & 2 could not be said to have committed any violation of the directions contained in the judgment dated 13.08.2013 – contempt petition dismissed.

2016 SCCL.COM 35(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 1829 of 2008)
Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune Appellant(s) versus Hindustan National Glass and Industries Limited Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/14/2016.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra and Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana.
Subject Index: Central Excise Act, 1944 – section 11A(1) – the adjudicating authority passed an order making a demand of Rs. 33,91,934/- being the duty payable on the additional consideration received by the assessee from the customers in the form of notional interest accrued on advance payments and also imposed penalty for the same amount under section 11 AC of the Act – the respondent-assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal which held that the revenue had not been able to discharge the onus by adducing cogent material evidence that the advances obtained from the buyer had really been instrumental in depression of the price and that there was no nexus of interest with the price and hence, the demand was not acceptable and consequently, no penalty could be levied – the appeal – the respondent-assessee obtained certain advance sums from some companies/users to supply the bottles and on that count it had granted 3-4% discount. The observations have been made on certain aspects and inferences have been drawn, thus, it cannot be said that no material was produced by the revenue – the Supreme Court opined that there has to be application of mind by the tribunal regard had being to the amount of money paid by purchasers, and what is the effect of the sales made to the two companies in percentile terms, whether this had the effect of depressing the sale price. The onus would be on the revenue – order passed by the Tribunal set aside and the matter remitted to the Tribunal for fresh disposal – appeal allowed.

2016 SCCL.COM 33(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 11450 of 2014)
Gail (India) Ltd. Appellant versus Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/13/2016.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman.
Subject Index: Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board Act, 2006 – whether the denial of access to common carrier capacity or reasonable endeavour basis to the two pipelines laid by the appellant to the second respondent, is discriminatory and amounting to Restrictive Trade Practices or not – issue arose for consideration – the order passed by the Board and upheld by the Tribunal directing the respondent to immediately cease its restrictive trade practice of preventing the shippers like complainant, the access of common carrier capacity in its common carrier pipeline and also imposing civil penalty of Rs. 1lakh under section 28 of the 2006 Act – in challenge – the Supreme Court held that unless the issue as to what extent, the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (Affiliate Code of Conduct for Entities Engaged in Marketing of Natural Gas and Laying, Building, operating or Expanding Natural Gas Pipeline) Regulations, 2008 are applicable to the complainant, is addressed, the complaint filed by the second respondent before the Board should not have been disposed of – impugned order set aside and matter remitted back to the Board for disposal of the complaint.  

2016 SCCL.COM 30(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 2140 of 2007 with Civil Appeal No. 5141 of 2007)
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and another Appellants versus M/s Orient Treasures Pvt. Ltd. and another Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/13/2016.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre.
Subject Index: A) Stock Insurance – burglary took place in the respondent’s Jewellery shop. The burglars broke open the locks of shutters, entered the shop and de-camped with the gold and silver ornaments – repudiation of claim by the Insurance Company on the ground that the stolen gold ornaments and silver articles were found to have been kept on display window and in the sales counters at the time of burglary which was contrary to the terms of the policy and, therefore, not covered in the policy – complaint filed – the National Commission partly allowed the petition filed by the respondent and directed the appellant-Insurance Co. to pay a sum of Rs. 36,10,211/- with interest @ 10% p.a. and costs at Rs. 50,000/- to the respondent – the appeal – the insurance coverage was not extended to such stolen articles under the policy kept in display window after business hours – the appellant was justified in contending that the stolen articles were not covered under the policy and no liability could be fastened on them to indemnify the loss of such articles for awarding any compensation to the respondent – impugned order passed by the National Commission set aside – appeal filed by the Insurance Co. allowed. B) Contract of Insurance – is one of the species of Commercial transaction between the insurer and insured. It is for the parties (insurer/Insured) to decide as to what type of insurance they intend to do to secure safety of the goods and how much premium the insured wish to pay to secure insurance of their goods as provided in the tariff. If the insured pays additional premium to the insurer to secure more safety and coverage of their insured goods, it is permissible for them to do so.

2016 SCCL.COM 38(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 174-175 of 2016 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) Nos.24809-24810 of 2008))
L. Gowramma (D) By Lr. Appellant versus Sunanda (D) By Lrs. & another Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/12/2016.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.F. Nariman.
Subject Index: Hindu Law Women’s Rights Act, 1933 – section 8 – certain females entitled to shares at partition – when the coparcenary property passes to a sole surviving coparcener, provision has been made in clause (d) of section 8(1). This clause, in protecting the rights of females, has necessarily to give females the right to share in the coparcenary property even if there be no partition at all, because on passing of property to a sole surviving coparcener, there could not possibly be any partition sought by the male members of the coparcenary body – A partition of joint family property between two brothers, it is only their mother, their unmarried sisters and widows and unmarried daughters of their pre-deceased undivided brothers who have left no male issue who get a share under the section.  

2016 SCCL.COM 36(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 195 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.9228 of 2012))
Medical Council of India Appellants versus JSS Medical College & another Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/12/2016.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal .
Subject Index: Admission – Notwithstanding the decision of this Court in Medical Council of India vs. JSS Medical College and another (2012) 5 SCC 628, the students are allowed to complete their course and obtain a degree in case they successfully complete the course. Since the College has not complied with the orders passed by this Court and permitted the students to continue their studies, the JSS Medical College is directed to deposit and amount of Rs. 5crore in the Registry of this Court – directions issued – ordered accordingly.  

2016 SCCL.COM 37(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 163 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP ( C) No. 15810 of 2015))
Tejalben Appellant versus Mihirbhai Bharatbhai Kothari Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/11/2016.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman.
Subject Index: Transfer application – dismissal of – in challenge – suit for divorce is pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Rajkot and the appellant moved before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad for transfer of proceedings pending at Rajkot to Jamnagar – the proceedings between the parties are pending at Jamnagar, therefore, the transfer of proceedings from Rajkot to Jamnagar allowed – appeal disposed.  

2016 SCCL.COM 27(Case No: Petition For Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 29125 of 2008)
M/s Sciemed Overseas Inc. Petitioner versus BOC India Limited & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/11/2016.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal.
Subject Index: Imposition of costs – for filing false affidavit in the Court – impugned order in challenge – issuance of notice by RIMS inviting tender for installation and supply of a complete system of Centralized Liquid Medical Oxygen with medical gas pipeline for Oxygen, Carbon-di-oxide, Nitrous Oxide and Compressed air etc. – writ petition filed challenging the issuance of the work order in favour of Sciemed-Petitioner – the High Court viewed that Sciemed had given a false affidavit to the effect that the work was near completion, thus, dismissed the appeal filed by the Sciemed and imposed costs of Rs. 10lakh to be deposited with the Jharkhand State Legal services Authority – whether the High Court was correct in imposing costs of Rs. 10lakh on the petitioner for filing a false or misleading affidavit in this Court – to consider – the correctness of the statement made by Sciemed was examined thread bare not only by the ld. Single Judge but also by the Division Bench and it was clearly found that a considerable amount of work has still to be completed by Sciemed and it was not as if the work was nearing completion as represented to this Court – justice dispensation system would be wrecked if statutory restrictions are not imposed upon the litigants, who attempt to mislead the Court by filing and relying upon false evidence particularly in cases, the adjudication of which is dependent upon the statement of facts – the imposition of costs by the High Court was justified, thus, not interfered – petition dismissed.  

2016 SCCL.COM 10(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 668 of 2011)
State of Assam Appellant versus Ramen Dowarah Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/11/2016.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 – offence under – the order passed by the High Court setting aside the conviction of the accused under section 376 IPC and altering the conviction under section 302 to section 304 Part II IPC – in challenge – the accused entered the house of the victim and committed rape on her and after pouring kerosene oil set her ablaze – the trial Court convicted the accused for commission of offence under sections 454/376/302 IPC which came to be altered by the High Court – the appeal – the circumstances, the oral evidence and dying declarations of the deceased unerringly pointed out that it was not a case of consensual sexual intercourse – no circumstance brought on record to indicate that it was a case of any exception, to take it out from the realm of section 300 IPC thus, the High Court erred in holding that accused did not intend to cause death – the overall circumstances established to the hilt that accused intended to kill deceased by setting her ablaze after committing forcible sexual intercourse – impugned order passed by the High Court set aside and order of conviction passed by the trial Court restored – appeal allowed.

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