Show the cases, Nominal/Party Name wise
Show the cases, Date of Decision wise
LATEST CASES
(for last one month)
Total No. of Cases: 13

2014 SCCL.COM 501(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 2545-2546 of 2012)
Maj. Gen. Kapil Mehra & others Appellants versus Union of India & another Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 10/17/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Banumathi  .
Subject Index: Land acquisition — award of compensation — appeals against the impugned order — aggrieved by the award, the appellants filed Reference Petition under Section 18 of the Act before the Additional District Judge (LAC), Delhi. In the reference court, the appellants produced four documents Exs A7 to A10-perpetual lease deeds of residential plots in Vasant Kunj, executed between September 1995 to December 1996 at the rates ranging from Rs.28,719/- to Rs.47,542/- per sq. yard. The reference court held that the lease deeds of auction of a developed plot by a public authority are not a proper guide for determining the fair market value of the acquired lands and reference court discarded the exemplars- Exs A7 to A10 lease deeds and rejected the claim of the appellants for enhancement of compensation — being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation and award of proportionate cost, the appellants are before this court — special leave petition was dismissed by a speaking order and the said order merges with the High Court order and the same is binding upon the appellant and in separate appeals, the appellants cannot challenge the adequacy of the compensation and the present appeals are not maintainable — ordinarily, when a litigant succeeds in part and fails in part, the equitable order made is that he should receive proportionate costs. When considering the appellants’ claim in C.M. No. 735 of 2011, in exercise of its discretion, the High Court rightly awarded proportionate costs and accordingly directed payment of such proportionate costs of over and above Rs.20,000/- as originally ordered. Merely because the appellants claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per sq.yard, the respondents cannot be saddled with the liability of paying the entire costs and the court fees paid by the appellants. There is no improper exercise of discretion by the High Court in awarding proportionate costs.  

2014 SCCL.COM 498(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos.9844-9846 of 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 23051-23053 of 2009))
Pradeep Kumar Maskara and others Appellants versus State of West Bengal and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 10/17/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose  .
Subject Index: West Bengal Land Reforms Act — applicability of — whether Chapter IIB of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act would be applicable qua the appellants in view of the fact that they belonged to a place which was in erstwhile State of Bihar and by virtue of the State Reorganisation Act, their lands were included in the State of West Bengal was decided against the appellants relying on the judgment in case of Ganga Dhar Singh & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal and Ors., 1997 (II) CHN 140.  

2014 SCCL.COM 495(Case No: Civil Appeal No . 9849 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 18639 of 2012))
State of Uttar Pradesh & others Appellants versus Arvind Kumar Srivastava & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 10/17/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri  .
Subject Index: Laches and delay in filing claim — persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the Court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim.

2014 SCCL.COM 494(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 2267 of 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.1453 of 2013))
Kuldeep Kaur Appellant versus State of Uttarakhand Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 10/17/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose  .
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 306 — conviction under — affirmed by DB of High Court — the High Court also dismissed the appeal preferred by the State against the judgment of acquittal passed by trial court — the evidence adduced as against the appellant does not establish the case under Section 306 of the Code. On the basis of evidence of the prosecution witnesses, conviction of the appellant only cannot be sustained — court does not find any strong reason to agree with the judgment of conviction passed by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court as against the appellant — the judgment of conviction of the appellant under Section 306 IPC is set aside.

2014 SCCL.COM 493(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 2228-2265 of 2014)
Gunmala Sales Private Ltd. Appellants versus Anu Mehta & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 10/17/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai and Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana.
Subject Index: Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — section 138 read with section 141 — maintainability of the complaint against the director of the company who has resigned — whether the Director, who has resigned can be prosecuted after his resignation has been accepted by the Board of Directors of the company — in the application filed by the respondents, no clear case was made out that at the material time, the Directors were not in charge of and were not responsible for the conduct of the business of the company by referring to or producing any uncontrovertible or unimpeachable evidence which is beyond suspicion or doubt or any totally acceptable circumstances — the matter deserves to be remitted to the High Court for fresh hearing — court inclined to confirm the order passed by the High Court quashing the process as against Shobha Mehta. Shobha Mehta is stated to be an old lady who is over 70 years of age. Considering this fact and on an overall reading of the complaint in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, court feel that making her stand the trial would be an abuse of process of the court. It is however, necessary for the High Court to consider the cases of other Directors in light of the decisions considered — in the circumstances, court confirm the impugned order to the extent it quashes the process issued against Shobha Mehta — the High Court is requested to consider the matter independently.

2014 SCCL.COM 500(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 9744 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.5694 of 2013))
Dipanwita Roy Appellant versus Ronobroto Roy Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 10/15/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal  .
Subject Index: Hindu Marriage Act 1955 — section 13 — petition under seeking  dissolution of the marriage — one of the grounds adulterous life style of the wife — the respondent-husband has made clear and categorical assertions in the petition filed by him under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, alleging infidelity. He has gone to the extent of naming the person, who was the father of the male child born to the appellant-wife. It is in the process of substantiating his allegation of infidelity, that the respondent husband had made an application before the Family Court for conducting a DNA test, which would establish whether or not, he had fathered the male child born to the appellant-wife. The respondent feels that it is only possible for him to substantiate the allegations levelled by him (of the appellant-wife's infidelity) through a DNA test — but for the DNA test, it would be impossible for the respondent-husband to establish and confirm the assertions made in the pleadings — just and appropriate to record a caveat, giving the appellant-wife liberty to comply with or disregard the order passed by the High Court, requiring the holding of the DNA test. In case, she accepts the direction issued by the High Court, the DNA test will determine conclusively the veracity of accusation levelled by the respondent-husband, against her. In case, she declines to comply with the direction issued by the High Court, the allegation would be determined by the concerned Court, by drawing a presumption of the nature contemplated in Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act — this course has been adopted to preserve the right of individual privacy to the extent possible. Of course, without sacrificing the cause of justice. By adopting the above course, the issue of infidelity alone would be determined, without expressly disturbing the presumption contemplated under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act.

2014 SCCL.COM 499(Case No: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 19552 of 2013)
Deo Kalya Patil & others Petitioners versus Nagindas Shamjibhai Shah Thr. Lrs. & Ors. Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 10/15/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri  .
Subject Index: Interlocutory order — the petition such as the one on hand ought to have been dismissed on the simple ground that it arises out of an interlocutory order during the pendency of the suit. The legality of such interlocutory order has already been considered by an appellate Court which is a constitutional Court. 

2014 SCCL.COM 497(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 2641-2643 of 2012 with Civil Appeal No. 2616 of 2012 and Civil Appeal No. 9828 of 2014 (arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) No. 9015 of 2014))
State of West Bengal and others Appellants versus Pronab Chakraborty Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 10/15/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra  .
Subject Index: Departmental proceedings — the departmental proceedings can be continued even after his retirement on attaining the age of superannuation — just and proper to relegate the matter back to the High Court for adjudication of the controversy raised by the respondent on merits in accordance with law. The High Court shall examine the merits of the controversy.  

2014 SCCL.COM 496(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 9722 of 2014 [Arising out of SLP(C) No.13844 of 2013])
Sarjeet Singh (D) Th. Lrs. Appellant versus Hari Singh & others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 10/15/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra and Hon'ble Mr. Jusitce Vikramjit Sen  .
Subject Index: Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961 — suit filed — not maintainable — it is always a brooding possibility that collusive suits are filed by co-sharers or other persons in the endeavour that shamilat deh may be metamorphosed or transformed into privately owned lands, always to the detriment of the gram sabha and of the villagers collectively — the three Courts below have not been adequately alive to this very important aspect. The land in question was, in fact, licenced to the co-sharers and was not their privately owned properties, individually or severally or collectively.

2014 SCCL.COM 486(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 1114 of 2011)
Mukesh Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 9/25/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Gopala Gowda and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 376 — conviction under — the evidence on record is sufficient to affirm the guilt of the accused on the charge framed against him. Hence, the accused is not entitled to the benefit of doubt as pleaded by him before this Court.

2014 SCCL.COM 485(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 8131-8132 of 2014)
Ashvinbhai Jayantilal Modi Appellant versus Ramkaran Ramchandra Sharma and another Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 9/25/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Gopala Gowda and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel.
Subject Index: Motor Accident Claims — the contributory negligence apportioned by the courts below on the part of the deceased is set aside — the total compensation payable to the appellant by the respondent-Insurance Company will be Rs.27,25,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the application till the date of payment.  

2014 SCCL.COM 487(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 4717-4719 of 2013)
Union of India and others Appellants versus Atul Shukla etc. Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 9/24/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S Thakur and Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Nagappan.
Subject Index: Indian Air Force — Group Captain (Time Scale) — continuation in service upto 54 and 57 years — whether the respondents who at the relevant point of time held the rank of Group Captain (Time Scale) in the Indian Air Force were entitled to continue in service upto 54 and 57 years depending upon whether they were serving in the flying or ground duty branch of the force. The question arises in the following backdrop — the Tribunal has allowed the petitions filed by the respondents holding them entitled to continue in service upto the age of 57 years in the case of officers serving in the ground duty branch and 54 years in the case of those serving in the flying branch of the Indian Air Force — the basis for classification in question for purposes of age of superannuation which the appellant has projected is much too tenuous to be accepted as a valid basis for giving to the Time Scale Officers a treatment different from the one given to the Select Officers — concerns arising from a parity in the retirement age of Time Scale and Select Officers too are more perceptional than real. At any rate, such concerns remain to be substantiated on the basis of any empirical data. The upshot of the above discussion is that the classification made by the Government of India for purposes of different retirement age for Time Scale Officers and Select Officers does not stand scrutiny on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution as rightly held by the Tribunal.

2014 SCCL.COM 467(Case No: Writ Petition (CRL.) No. 120 of 2012 With Writ Petition (CRL.) No. 463,515 of 2012 Writ Petition (CRL.) No. 283 of 2013)
Manohar Lal Sharma Petitioner versus The Principle Secretary and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 9/24/2014.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha CJI, Madan B. Lokur and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph.
Subject Index: Coal blocks allotment — on 25th August, 2014 judgment was delivered in these cases and it was held, inter alia, that the allotment of coal blocks made by the Screening Committee of the Government of India, as also the allotments made through the Government dispensation route are arbitrary and illegal. Since the conclusion arrived at would have potentially had far-reaching consequences, on which submissions were not made when the case was heard, the question of what should be the consequences of the declaration was left open for hearing — Held — it is made clear that the scrutiny by the CBI in respect of the allotment of 12 coal blocks out of 46 identified by the learned Attorney General (and for that matter against any other allottee) will continue and be taken to its logical conclusion.

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