Show the cases, Nominal/Party Name wise
Show the cases, Date of Decision wise
LATEST CASES
(for last one month)
Total No. of Cases: 38

2015 SCCL.COM 111(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 2079 of 2015 (Arising from S.L.P. (C) No. 20140 of 2014))
M/s. Sundaram Finance Limited and another Appellants versus T. Thankam Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/20/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph .
Subject Index: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — section 8 — application under — once an application is duly filed in terms of Section 8 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the civil court, what should be the approach of the court, is the short question arising for consideration in this case — the trial court is directed to pass fresh orders on the application filed by the appellant-defendant under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act. The needful shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order.

2015 SCCL.COM 110(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 2061 of 2015 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 21297 of 2014))
The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and others Appellants versus Revat Singh Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/20/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prafulla C. Pant .
Subject Index: Appointment on compassionate ground — one Kalyan Singh father of the respondent Revat Singh was a driver with appellant Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation — He died in harness on 26.6.2006. The respondent sought compassionate appointment on the post of driver. His educational qualification was 8th standard pass. The appellants considered the application for appointment on compassionate ground, and rejected the same on the ground that the respondent was not qualified either for the post of driver or that of conductor — since the respondent was not qualified for the post of driver, as such the High Court erred in law in directing the appellant to consider his case against the post of driver of heavy vehicle — this appeal deserves to be allowed as the respondent is not qualified for the post of driver — the respondent shall be allowed to work on the post of Artisan Grade III as offered to him.

2015 SCCL.COM 109(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 2078 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 20977 of 2014))
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Appellant versus Dr. Sukanta Kumar Behera & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/20/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra .
Subject Index: Motor Accident — whether the High Court is justified in awarding compensation of Rs.55,00,000/- without any discussion and computation. The approach of the High Court cannot be said to be justified in such cases of injury. It is necessary to make computation of compensation to be awarded on account of pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads — the appeal has been preferred by the insurer against the order dated 9.5.2014, passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in M.A.C.A. No.576 of 2008 awarding compensation of Rs.55,00,000/- to the respondent, Dr. Sukanta Kumar Behera for the injuries sustained and permanent disability incurred by him in the accident dated 9.9.2001. The Claims Tribunal had awarded compensation of Rs.4,01,414/- — the appeal is allowed in part. Compensation amount of Rs.35,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five lacs only) is awarded to the claimant along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum with effect from the date of filing of claim petition.

2015 SCCL.COM 107(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 325 of 2015)
Ravi Prakash Singh @ Arvind Singh Appellant versus State of Bihar Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/20/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prafulla C. Pant .
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — section 482 — petition under — dismissed by the High Court and High Court declined to interfere with the order dated 22.10.2013, passed by Sessions Judge, In-charge, Kaimur at Bhabua in Bail Petition No. 542 of 2013, and upheld the refusal to release the appellant on bail under Section 167(2) of the Code — whether infringement of section 167 of the code — the In-charge Sessions Judge, who disposed of the above bail application, also opined that since the charge sheet had already been submitted, as such, the appellant was not entitled to bail on the ground that charge-sheet was not received within time — in the present case, date 5.7.2013 is to be excluded and, as such, the charge sheet was filed on ninetieth day, i.e., 3.10.2013. Therefore, there is no infringement of Section 167(2) of the Code — the High Court has not erred in law in dismissing the petition under Section 482 of the Code, and upholding the refusal of bail to appellant prayed by him under Section 167(2) of the Code.

2015 SCCL.COM 103(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 2077 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP (C) NO. 8675 OF 2014))
M/S. Bhandari Udyog Limited Appellant versus Industrial Facilitation Council and another Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/20/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph  .
Subject Index: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — section 34 — whether the Bombay High Court has correctly decided the jurisdiction of a Court to entertain application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996? — the Arbitration proceeding has been conducted within the jurisdiction of Raichur court, which has jurisdiction as per Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure and is subordinate to the High Court of Karnataka which entertained Section 11 Application. Hence, the Award cannot be challenged before a Court subordinate to the High Court of Bombay. Exercise of jurisdiction by such court shall be against the provision of Section 42 of the Act — the District Court at Latur and High Court of Bombay have committed error of law in entertaining the application under Section 34 of the Act and dismissing the revision petition.

2015 SCCL.COM 100(Case No: Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 4572-4575 of 2015)
Prasar Bharati Petitioner(s) versus Board of Control for Cricket in India & others Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/20/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prafulla C. Pant .
Subject Index: Prasor Bharti — special leave petition — the interim order passed earlier to the effect that the impugned order dated 04.02.2015 of the High Court shall remain suspended should continue until further orders — in view of the importance of the matter, Court directs that the special leave petitions be heard at an early date.

2015 SCCL.COM 102(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 1149 of 2013)
Sanjeev Appellant versus State of Haryana Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/19/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. T.S. Thakur Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prafulla C. Pant  .
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 302 — conviction under — affirmed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court — the act committed by the appellant in the present case is covered by Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, i.e., culpable homicide not amounting to murder, as such the same is, punishable under Section 304 Part I, IPC — the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court in respect of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC against the appellant, is set aside — appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part I, IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-.

2015 SCCL.COM 105(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 262 of 2009)
Ghusabhai Raisangbhai Chorasiya & others Appellants versus State of Gujarat Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/18/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya .
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 498A, 306, 201 and 114 — conviction under — affirmed by the Division Bench — on the basis of the said evidence, it is difficult to sustain the conviction under Sections 306 and 498A IPC — the Court is holding that the accused-appellants are not guilty of the offence under Section 306 and 498A IPC, the conviction under Section 201 IPC is also not sustainable — the appeal is allowed, the conviction and sentence of all the appellants are set aside.

2015 SCCL.COM 104(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 7796 of 1997)
GVK Industries Ltd. & and another Appellants versus The Income Tax Officer & another Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/18/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya .
Subject Index: Consultancy Services — Court is concerned with the expression “consultancy services”. In this regard, a reference to the decision by the authority for advance ruling In Re. P.No. 28 of 1999[(1999) 242 ITR 280], would be applicable — as the factual matrix in the case at hand, would exposit the NRC had acted as a consultant. It had the skill, acumen and knowledge in the specialized field i.e. preparation of a scheme for required finances and to tie-up required loans — the nature of service referred by the NRC, can be said with certainty would come within the ambit and sweep of the term ‘consultancy service’ and, therefore, it has been rightly held that the tax at source should have been deducted as the amount paid as fee could be taxable under the head ‘fee for technical service — once the tax is payable paid the grant of ‘No Objection Certificate’ was not legally permissible. Ergo, the judgment and order passed by the High Court are absolutely impregnable.

2015 SCCL.COM 101(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 2006 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP(C) NO. 981 of 2014))
Jakir Hussein Appellant versus Sabir & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/18/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.Gopala Gowda and Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi.
Subject Index: Motor accident award — inadequate compensation — modification of the award — submitted by him that the High Court has committed a serious error in law in not awarding just and reasonable compensation in favour of the appellant by taking various factual aspects such as permanent disability suffered by him, medical evidence — the total compensation payable to the appellant by the respondent Insurance Company will be Rs.17,60,500/- as per amount awarded against different heads mentioned in the table with interest @ 9% p.a. on the compensation awarded by this Court from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment.

2015 SCCL.COM 99(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos.1942-1943 of 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P (C) Nos.26832-26833 of 2009))
N.M.Krishnakumari & others Appellants versus Thalakkal Assiya & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/17/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Gopala Gowda and Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi .
Subject Index: Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 — as amended by the Act, 17 of 1972 — sections 72MM(I) and 74, 75 and 103 — the High Court has rightly reversed the decision of the Appellate Authority after careful examination of the divergent findings of fact recorded by it as the same are contrary to both the documentary and oral evidence on record, particularly Ext.B1 — in the light of all the material evidence on record and the statutory provisions under Sections 74 and 75 of the Act, the relevant and glaring error on fact and in law committed by the Appellate Authority has been rightly interfered with by the High Court — the power exercised by the High Court under Section 103 of the Act has been rightly exercised by it in setting aside the judgment and order of the Appellate Authority, as the same is not only erroneous but also error in law.

2015 SCCL.COM 98(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 1966 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP © No. 31615 of 2014) with Civil Appeal No. 1967 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP © No. 32581 of 2014))
Roxann Sharma Appellant versus Arun Sharma Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/17/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikramajit Sen and Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Nagappan.
Subject Index: Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956 — section 6 — court transfers the temporary custody of Thalbir to the Appellant/Mother with the direction that both of them shall reside in the address given by her, viz, House No.80, Magnolia, Ground Floor, Bin Waddo, Betalbatim, Goa and will not leave that territorial jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior leave — the Respondent/Father shall have visitation rights between 2.30 p.m. and 6.00 p.m. on every Tuesday and Thursday, and from 2.30 p.m. to 9.00 p.m. on Saturdays. These Orders are purely temporary in nature. The Civil Judge should decide the Petition/application pending before him with expedition, as directed by the High Court, without being influenced by any observations made.

2015 SCCL.COM 97(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 2532 of 2010 with C.A. Nos. 1972-1973 of 2015 (@ S.L.P. (C) Nos.10172-10173 of 2012) with C.A. Nos. 1974-1975 of 2015 (@ S.L.P. (C) Nos.14651-14652 of 2012) with C.A. Nos. 1976-1977 of 2015 (@ S.L.P. (C) Nos.19708-19709 of 2012))
Union of India & others Appellants versus V.K. Krishnan & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/17/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shiva Kirti Singh  .
Subject Index: Indian Railway Establishment Manual, 1989 — interpretation of paras 180, 189 and 320 of the Manual.

2015 SCCL.COM 80(Case No: Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 218 of 2013)
Rashmi Behl Petitioner versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/17/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shiva Kirti Singh .
Subject Index: Constitution of India — Article 32 — writ petition under — for the enforcement of her fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as even though her FIR was registered on 21.1.2013 neither statements of the petitioner or her witnesses had been recorded nor her medical examination under Section 164A of the Criminal Procedure Code had been done by the Uttar Pradesh Police despite repeated notices and reminders sent to the authorities. Petitioner has alleged to the extent that she was abducted, repeatedly assaulted and raped by her own father and his accomplices for not accepting their demand to enter the flesh trade in which her family is actively involved — taking into consideration the entire facts of the case and very serious allegations made against all the respondents including police officers, it is a fit case where the investigation has to be handed over to an independent agency like CBI for the purpose of fair and unbiased investigation — Supreme Court allows this petition and directs the Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate the case independently and in an objective manner and to conclude the same in accordance with law.

2015 SCCL.COM 79(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 1956-1957 of 2015 (@ SLP (C) Nos.11924-11925 of 2012) with Civil Appeal Nos. 1992-1993 of 2015 (@ SLP (C) Nos.18597-18598 of 2012) Civil Appeal Nos. 1958-1959 of 2015 (@ SLP (C) Nos.26015-16 of 2012) (@ SLP (C) Nos.11924-11925 of 2012)
Nawal Kishore Mishra & others Etc. Appellant(s) versus High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/17/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre .
Subject Index: Reservation Act, 1994 — section 3(1) — Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975 — Rules 7 and 8(2) — the High Court by adopting the Reservation Act, 1994 adopted the rule of reservation to the full extent provided for and as prescribed under Section 3(1) of the Reservation Act, 1994 and that in respect of any unfilled vacancies of that category, the High Court rightly resorted to the prescription contained in Rule 8(2) by resorting to filling up of such vacancies by special recruitment in that year as directed by this Court and in the absence of not getting such vacancies filled up by resorting to such filling up by promotion of ‘in service candidates’ and also by applying the proviso to Rule 8(2) and thereby carry forward those vacancies in the future years of recruitment — the action of the High Court in having resorted to filling up of the unfilled reserved vacancies by taking umbrage under Rule 8(2) was perfectly justified — the said action of the High Court in having filled up those unfilled reserved vacancies of direct recruitment of the year 2009 was stated to have been made by promoting the in-service candidates — without disturbing whatever promotions already made by resorting to Rule 8(2), the High Court can be permitted to provide that number of vacancies which remained unfilled in the year 2009 in the reserved category of direct recruit source by adding that number of vacancies in the recruitment to be made in the future years until such number of vacancies of unfilled reserved category pertaining to 2009 are filled — Supreme Court does not wish to meddle with the promotions already made, does not find any scope for granting any relief to the appellants, as none of the submissions raised on behalf of the appellants, which were though not considered by the Division Bench of the High Court and which were also dealt with by The Supreme Court in extenso and Supreme Court find no merit.

2015 SCCL.COM 78(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 1970 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 28265 of 2014))
Praveenbhai S. Khambhayata Appellant versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/17/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Gopala Gowda and Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi .
Subject Index: Workmen's compensation — payment of — this appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 16.04.2014 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad dismissing the appellant’s First Appeal No.282 of 2014 observing that the Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify him, thereby confirming the order dated 11.11.2013 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation/Labour Court, Rajkot — statutory rate of penalty i.e. 15% is to be ordered in addition to the statutory interest payable at the rate of 12% per annum — the 1st respondent-insurance company shall deposit the balance compensation being 15% penalty and the interest at the rate of 12% after one month from the date when the compensation amount fell due and also 15% penalty with the Labour Court/Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation within a period of six weeks from today. On such deposit, the same shall be disbursed to respondents No.2 to 4. The amount of Rs.3,25,365/- already deposited by the appellant with the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation shall also be disbursed to respondents No. 2 to 4 if not already disbursed.

2015 SCCL.COM 108(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 6156 of 2005)
Petromarine Products Ltd. Appellant versus Ocean Marine Services Company Ltd. and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/17/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shiva Kirti Singh.
Subject Index: Motor Vessel 'Elani' — sale proceeds — disbursements made by single Judge of the sale proceeds received by sale of the ship in question — appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.11.2003 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Madras in OSA No.175 of 1998, dismissing the appeal of the appellant, upholding inter alia the disbursements made by Single Judge of the sale proceeds — in the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the law settled, so far the admiralty jurisdiction of the Court is concerned, Supreme Court does not find any reason to differ with the findings recorded by the Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned order — do not find any merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed, however with no order as to costs.

2015 SCCL.COM 85(Case No: Arbitration Petition No. 6 of 2014)
M/s. System for International Agencies Petitioner versus M/s. Rahul Coach Builders Pvt. Ltd. Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/16/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave.
Subject Index: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — section 11(6) — petition under for arbitration — the parties to the agreement had agreed to refer the dispute to arbitration under the provisions of the ‘By-laws of Indian Companies Act, 1956 — held the clause with regard to arbitration is quite vague and as there are no by-laws framed under the provisions of the Companies Act, no arbitrator can be appointed.

2015 SCCL.COM 84(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 1892 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 21865 of 2014))
State of Madhya Pradesh & others Appellants versus Hitkishore Goswami Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/16/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre .
Subject Index: Pension case — whether the Courts below were justified in allowing the respondent's writ petition and in consequence justified in issuing directions in the nature of writ of mandamus in relation to respondent's pension case — it is a trite law that a right to claim pension is governed by the statue. An employee has, therefore, no right to claim any benefit in relation to pension dehores the statute — the courts below erred in directing the State to give benefit to the respondent of his services which he had rendered from “02.07.1963 to 02.01.1966” for fixing his pension without properly examining the effect of his tendering resignation on the issue raised in the writ petition — the respondent was, therefore, entitled to get the benefit of his services rendered from “03.01.1966” onwards as mentioned by him in the Form (Annexure- P-1) for assessing his pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits etc — court inclined to uphold the finding of courts below on this issue and, accordingly, hold that writ petition was not liable for dismissal on the ground of delay and laches on the part of respondent — the appellant (State) to finalize the claim of the respondent for fixing his pension and other retiral benefits in the light of what is held.

2015 SCCL.COM 83(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 3937-3938 and 4201 of 2011)
Warsaliganj Sahkari Chini Mill Mazdoor Union and others Appellants versus State of Bihar and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/16/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph  .
Subject Index: Seasonal workers — retaining allowance — Whether seasonal workers of the sugar factories stopped crushing years back would be entitled to retaining allowance, was the main issue agitated by the appellant-union before the High Court. It was held by the High Court that as there was no crushing in the sugar factories, the seasonal workers will not be entitled to retaining allowance.  

2015 SCCL.COM 82(Case No: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1034 of 2014)
Mahatma Education Society’s Pillai’s Institute of Information Technology, Engineering, Media Studies & Research Petitioner versus All India Council for Technical Education & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/16/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph .
Subject Index: Institutions — Approval to the institutions run by the petitioner — approximately 550 students are prosecuting studies in the Engineering College at present and because of non-approval to the institutions run by the petitioner, academic career of the students would be ruined — as the approval had not been granted, the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No.6021 of 2014 in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay and by an interim order, the High Court was pleased to grant limited interim relief, whereby the petitioner was permitted to give admission to students — it is not in dispute that the petitioner society has been imparting education to students through its colleges for the last 15 years. If approval is not granted, the students, who have already been admitted by an interim order of the High Court for the academic year 2014-15, would be put to great inconvenience and difficulties for no fault on their part — as an exceptional case, without going into the merits of this case, Supreme Court exercises its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and direct respondent no.1 to grant a letter of approval to the concerned colleges managed by the petitioner for the academic year 2014-15 — the petitioner shall do the needful to comply with the requirements of the aforestated Regulation and other Regulations.

2015 SCCL.COM 81(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 1918 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.30573 2012))
State of Karnataka tr. Sec. Hsg. & urb & another Appellants versus Vasavadata Cement & another Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/16/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikramajit Sen .
Subject Index: Town Municipal Council — altering of existing limit notification — posting of — in view of the fact that a detailed inquiry is required, Supreme Court finds it more feasible to direct the State Government to inquire into the matter and, if so necessary, file an FIR against the alleged officers who might have created the document containing the name of nine conspicuous places in the so called notification dated 3rd October, 1995, signed by the Chief Officer, Sedam in green ink — the Chief Secretary, State of Karnataka is directed to hold an inquiry with regard to notification No. TMC:SEDAM:95- 96 dated 3rd October, 1995 issued from the office TMC, Sedam, signed by Chief Officer, Sedam in green ink wherein nine places have been shown for posting the notifications. If it is found to be a document created subsequently, an FIR to this effect be lodged against the concerned officials for forging documents. Departmental proceedings be also initiated and an appropriate action be taken.

2015 SCCL.COM 96(Case No: Criminal Appeal Nos. 288-289 of 2015 [Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)Nos.6240-6241 of 2014])
Binoy & another Appellants versus State of Kerala Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/13/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shiva Kirti Singh .
Subject Index: A)  Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 — not extended. B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 324, 452 and 323 — conviction under — no good reason to interfere.

2015 SCCL.COM 95(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 1852 of 2015 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.5811 of 2014))
National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. Appellant versus M/s Ashok Kumar Singh & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/13/2015.
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: Contract Act, 1872 — section 5 — right to withdraw the bid without suffering forfeiture of the earnest money — it is no longer possible for the respondents to contend that the right to withdraw the bid in terms of Section 5 of the Contract Act, 1872 would entitle them to withdraw without suffering forfeiture of the earnest money even in cases where the submission and receipt of bids is itself subject to the condition that in the event of a withdrawal of the bid the earnest money stand forfeited. Inasmuch as the High Court remained totally oblivious of the true legal position while directing refund of the earnest money, it committed an error — order of the High Court set aside.

2015 SCCL.COM 91(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 290 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5609 of 2013))
State of M.P. Appellant versus Mehtaab Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/13/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel .
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 304A and 337 — appeal against the judgment and order — reducing the sentence awarded to the respondent under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code — from RI for one year and under Section 337 IPC from RI for three months to RI for 10 days which was the period already undergone by him — held the respondent having been found guilty of causing death by his negligence, the High Court was not justified in reducing the sentence of imprisonment to 10 days without awarding any compensation to the heirs of the deceased — in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the High Court can be upheld only with the modification that the accused will pay compensation of Rs.2 lakhs to the heirs of the deceased within six months.

2015 SCCL.COM 90(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 5254 of 2006)
P.V. Guru Raj Reddy Rep. by Gpa Laxmi Narayan Reddy & another Appellants versus P. Neeradha Reddy & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/13/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prafulla C. Pant .
Subject Index: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — order vii rule 11 — applications under — allowed by the High Court — appeals — the suits in question were not filed for recovery of any property held in benami by the defendants. Rather, the suit was for declaration of plaintiffs' title and for recovery of possession from the defendants — Supreme Court allows this appeal and direct the learned trial Court to hear and decide both the suits i.e. Original Suit No.71 of 2002 and Original Suit No.72 of 2002 on merits at an early date.

2015 SCCL.COM 89(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 2904 of 2011 with Civil Appeal No.2905 of 2011 Civil Appeal No.3409 of 2011 Civil Appeal No.5144 of 2011 Civil Appeal No.2279 of 2011 Civil Appeal No.1498 of 2011 Civil Appeal No.5090 of 2011 Civil Appeal No.5414 of 2011 Civil Appeal No.5163 of 2011 Civil Appeal No.5840 of 2011 Civil Appeal No.7368 of 2011 Civil Appeal No.7479 of 2011 Civil Appeal No.7629 of 2011 Civil Appeal No.5469 of 2011 Civil Appeal No.10747 of 2011 Civil Appeal No.11398 of 2011 Civil Appeal No.183 of 2012 Civil Appeal No.167 of 2012 Civil Appeal No. 10105 of 2011 Civil Appeal No. 5819 of 2012 Civil Appeal No. 5260 of 2012 Civil Appeal D.16394 of 2013 Civil Appeal No.1856 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.15768 of 2011) Civil Appeal No.1854 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.14478 of 2011) Civil Appeal No.1855 of 2015 Arising out of SLP (C) No.26401 of 2010 Civil Appeal No.1858 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 32190 of 2010) Civil Appeal No.1859 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.27220 of 2012))
Union of India & another Appellants versus Rajbir Singh Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/13/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur and Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi .
Subject Index: Pension Regulations of the Army — disability pension — entitlement to claim — the Tribunal has taken the view that the disability of each one of the respondents was attributable to or aggravated by military service and the same having been assessed at more than 20% entitled them to disability pension. The appellant-Union of India has assailed that finding and direction for payment of pension primarily on the ground that the Medical Boards concerned having clearly opined that the disability had not arisen out of or aggravated by military service, the Tribunal was not justified in taking a contrary view — the Supreme Court is of the view that each one of the respondents having been discharged from service on account of medical disease/disability, the disability must be presumed to have been arisen in the course of service which must, in the absence of any reason recorded by the Medical Board, be presumed to have been attributable to or aggravated by military service. There is admittedly neither any note in the service records of the respondents at the time of their entry into service nor have any reasons been recorded by the Medical Board to suggest that the disease which the member concerned was found to be suffering from could not have been detected at the time of his entry into service — the initial presumption that the respondents were all physically fit and free from any disease and in sound physical and mental condition at the time of their entry into service thus remains unrebutted. Since the disability has in each case been assessed at more than 20%, their claim to disability pension could not have been repudiated by the appellants.  

2015 SCCL.COM 70(Case No: Arbitration Case (Civil) No. 36 and 38 of 2014)
M/s KSS Kssiipl Consortium thro. its Constituted Attorney Mr. Devendra Kumar Petitioner versus M/s Gail (India) Ltd. Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/12/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi  .
Subject Index: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — section 11(6) — application under — seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator to go into the disputes and differences that the petitioner claims to have arisen out of two separate contract agreements entered into by and between the parties.  

2015 SCCL.COM 112(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 1822 of 2015 (arising out of SLP(C)No.29805 of 2014))
Raveesh Chand Jain Appellant versus Raj Rani Jain Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/12/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shiva Kirti Singh .
Subject Index: Unauthorised Possession of the suit property — quantum of damages — taking into consideration the relationship of the appellant and the respondent being mother and son, court does not think it proper to again remand the matter to the trial court for deciding the issue as to the quantum of damages the respondent is entitled to get from the appellant for his unauthorized possession of the suit property — the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- would be just and proper so far as the claim for damages is concerned — fit not to interfere with the order passed by the High Court. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed — court allows the appellant to remain in possession of the suit property till 31.12.2015 on payment of Rs.10,000/- per month by way of damages for use and occupation of the suit property. It is made clear that in the event the appellant fails to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the suit property and also fails in payment of monthly damages as fixed hereinabove on or before 31.12.2015, respondent will be entitled to execute the decree for recovery of possession and also for damages.

2015 SCCL.COM 69(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 1755 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 22246 of 2014))
Krishna Hare Gaur Appellant versus Vinod Kumar Tyagi & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/11/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Gopala Gowda and Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi .
Subject Index: Principle of res judicata — barred by — this appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 15.05.2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad allowing the Special Appeal No.1165/2012 filed by respondent No.1 observing that the appellant’s claim is barred by the principle of res judicata — since respondent No.1 obtained appointment on the basis of bogus certificates, in supreme court's considered view, the principle of res judicata will not be attracted to the case on hand — insofar as the plea of respondent No.1 that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to him by the Additional District Magistrate, it is seen from the records that respondent No.1 himself has filed a representation dated 29.09.2011 before the Additional District Magistrate, which was considered by the Additional District Magistrate and there is no merit in the contention of respondent No.1 that there was violation of principles of natural justice — Since the appointment of respondent No.1 is conditional that in the case of any concealment of facts, the approval is liable to be cancelled, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari rightly passed the order cancelling the appointment which was rightly upheld by the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench was not right in setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge on the principles of res judicata and the impugned order of the Division Bench is liable to be set aside.

2015 SCCL.COM 57(Case No: Criminal Appeal Nos. 285-287 of 2015 [Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)Nos.300-302 of 2013])
Sonu Gupta Appellant versus Deepak Gupta & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/11/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shiva Kirti Singh  .
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 464, 468 and 471 — he respondents are accused in this Complaint Case which was filed on 07.12.2010 for alleged offences under Section 464, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) — the substance of the accusation in the instant complaint case is that anticipating legal action by the appellant against renewed mental torture and harassment by the respondent no.1 and his other relations named as accused, as a stratagem and outcome of a conspiracy, one of her earlier letters of complaint to some police officials which had been withdrawn by the appellant in April-May 2001, was changed and tampered as per convenience and a photocopy of such undated complaint making out a weak case against the respondents which was bound to fail, was got registered at the instance of the accused persons themselves with the help of some police officials as Criminal Case (FIR No.73/2002) on 06.10.2002 in the Mahila Thana, Raipur by the Town Inspector of this Thana under pressure of accused no.9, Additional Director General of Police, PHQ, Raipur — in the interest of justice, court direct that in the facts of the case accused nos.6 to 9 shall be granted benefit of bail by the learned Magistrate if they appear within 10 weeks and apply for same. The Magistrate shall of course be at liberty to set reasonable conditions for such grant.

2015 SCCL.COM 115(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 2146 of 2009)
Bhim Singh & another Appellants versus State of Uttarakhand Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/11/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose .
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 304-B — there is no missing link in the circumstantial evidence put forth by the prosecution, and hence the accused are not entitled to benefit of doubt. The guilt of the accused persons i.e. the appellant Nos.1 & 2 herein, under Section 304-B IPC has been successfully established — no infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the High Court. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.

2015 SCCL.COM 113(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 827 of 2008)
Dasin Bai@ Shanti Bai Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/11/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose .
Subject Index: Evidence — the ground of defense taken by the appellant, that she did not have any motive to kill the deceased, is ill founded and does not break the chain of circumstances. Therefore, when facts are clear it is not necessary to have proof of motive or illwill to sustain conviction — the Trial Court an d the High Court have rightly analysed the evidence of these witnesses and the statements made in the dying declaration and held the accused guilty. That being so, no interference is called for.

2015 SCCL.COM 64(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 4510 of 2006)
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited Appellant versus Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/10/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal .
Subject Index: Electricity Act, 2003 — section 125 — appeal under — Section 125 of the Act contemplates filing of an appeal to this Court against an order of the Appellate Tribunal on any one or more of the grounds specified in Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The scope of an appeal to this Court under the aforesaid provision of the Act was considered in DSR (Steel) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan[(2012) 6 SCC 782] — the challenge in the present appeal, therefore, will have to be considered keeping in mind the principles laid down in DSR (Steel) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan — held no ground whatsoever to interfere with the impugned judgment and order dated 26.05.2006 and 25.07.2006 passed by the Appellate Tribunal or any part thereof.

2015 SCCL.COM 58(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 1662 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP (C) NO.5097 of 2012))
Khursheed Ahmad Khan Appellant versus State of U.P. & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/9/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel .
Subject Index: U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules 1956 — Rule 29(1) — the question raised for consideration relates to validity of order dated 17th June, 2008 removing the appellant from service for proved misconduct of contracting another marriage during existence of the first marriage without permission of the Government in violation of Rule 29(1) of the U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1956 — held unable to hold that the Conduct Rule in any manner violates Article 25 of the Constitution.

2015 SCCL.COM 77(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 1651 of 2015 [@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 27080 of 2013])
M/s Anvil Cables Pvt Ltd Appellant(s) versus Commnr. of Central Taxes & Service Tax Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/6/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shiva Kirti Singh  .
Subject Index: Costs — payment of — looking at the peculiar facts of the case, in the interests of justice, we direct that upon payment of Rs. 25,000/- by way of costs to the sole respondent within two months from today, the impugned Judgment shall be set aside and Tax Appeal No. 3 of 2013 shall be restored to its original number and shall be heard on merits by the High Court.

2015 SCCL.COM 59(Case No: Civil Appea No. 8224 of 2012)
Professor Ramesh Chandra Appellant versus University of Delhi & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/6/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya and Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.Nagappan .
Subject Index: Removal from service — punishment — this appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the impugned judgment dated 1st March, 2012 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.2547 of 2010. By the impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, upheld Para 6 of the Annexure to Ordinance XI of University of Delhi and refused to interfere with the show cause notice issued on the appellant and the memorandum(s) by which the appellant was punished and removed from the service of the Delhi University — if any person who is or was a legal practitioner, including a retired Hon’ble Judge is appointed as Inquiry Officer in an inquiry initiated against an employee, the denial of assistance of legal practitioner to the charged employee would be unfair — all the Departmental inquiries conducted against the appellant were in violation of rules of natural justice. This apart as the third inquiry report is based on extraneous facts and first part of the charge held to be proved in memorandum dated 26th March, 2010 being not the part of the charges shown in the (third) chargesheet, the order of punishment, including Resolution by memorandum dated 26th March, 2010 cannot be upheld — in effect, the appellant stands reinstated to the post of Professor but in the facts and circumstances, supreme court allows only 50% of back wages (salary) to appellant for the intervening period i.e. from the date of his disengagement till the date of this judgment. However, the aforesaid period shall be treated ‘on duty’ for all purposes including seniority, increment, fixation of pay, retrial benefits, etc. The respondents are directed to pay the appellant arrears within two months, failing which they shall be liable to pay interest @ 6% from the date of this judgment.

2015 SCCL.COM 68(Case No: Criminal Appeal No.593 of 2012)
L. Laxmikanta Appellant(s) versus State by Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/5/2015.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre .
Subject Index: Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) — conviction under — by impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant (accused) and confirmed the judgment of the trial court which convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under — whether the Courts below were justified in convicting and awarding sentences to the appellant for the offences specified — twin requirements of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification of Rs.2000/- were proved on the basis of evidence adduced by the prosecution against the appellant and hence the appellant was rightly convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Section 7 read with and Section 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Act — Supreme Court does not find any necessity or ground to remand the case to the High Court for its fresh hearing.

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