SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENTS - A VIEW

C.M. Girish Babu v C.B.I., Cochin, High Court of Kerala 24/2/2009. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - section - and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) - conviction under - was acquitted of the charge under Section 120B of the IPC -the appellant preferred an appeal to the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam, which dismissed the appeal by its judgment dated 28th November, 2007. However, the Appellate Court reduced the substantive sentence to that of one year only. The High Court acquitted the first accused of all the charges against which State preferred no appeal. This appeal is brought, by special leave against the judgment of the High Court - Leave granted Anand Kumar Appellant versus State of M.P. 20/2/2009. Indian Penal Code, 1860 - section 306 and Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - section 4 - conviction under - appeal under an abetment of suicide as visualized by Section 306 of the IPC but in Section 113-B which is relatable to Section 304-B the word `may' has been substituted by `shall' and there is no reference to the circumstances of the case. Admittedly, the conviction of the appellant has been recorded under Section 306 which is relatable to Section 113-A and though the presumption against an accused has to be raised therein as well, the onus is not as heavy as in the case of a dowry death - Leave granted Krishan Gopal and another v Sandhya Devi and others 18/2/2009. Motor accident - negligent driving - compensation - High Court held that respondent's son died due to the rash and negligent driving of the Appellant No.2 herein, while he was driving the scooter owned by the Appellant No.1 (father of Appellant No.2) and that both of them were jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.2 lakhs, together with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum w.e.f. 6th October, 1999, till deposit of the amount - the appellants have filed the instant appeal against the said decision of the High Court -the reversal of the Award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by the High Court cannot be said to be perverse or without any basis - Leave granted Usha Rajkhowa and others v M/s. Paramount Industries and others 17/2/2009. Motor accident - contributory negligence - compensation - the Tribunal limited the appellants' entitlement to 50% of assessed claim amount and granted compensation of Rs.6,56,300/- on the ground that there was contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the Car, who lost his life in accident. He was the husband of appellant No. 1 and the father of appellant No. 2. The Car was insured by respondent No. 3 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. -the compensation was correctly assessed - would not confirm the theory that the accident took place because of the contributory negligence and would choose to award full compensation to the appellants. - Leave granted Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board & others v P. Satyanarayana Rao 16/2/2009. Regularisation of the services of the workmen - stay - granting of - the Division Bench of the High Court, however, granted stay of payment of arrears till the disposal of the appeal. That being the position, this Court grants the stay against the regularization of the services of the workmen till the disposal of the appeal as well - refusal to stay against regularisation of the services of the workmen stands set aside and interim order is granted in the manner indicated till the disposal of the appeal. State of M.P. v Abdul Kadir and another 13/2/2009. Madhya Pradesh Prisoners (Release on Probation) Act, 1954 and the Rules made thereunder - writ petition by life convict - plea in the writ petition was that his case had been recommended by the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police but the Probation Board in its meeting held on 24.1.2001 did not recommend his case for release on probation - order passed in writ petition challenged in Letters Patent Appeal - dismissal - appeal by State - since the High Court has not considered the issues in the proper perspective, this Court sets aside the impugned order of the Division Bench and direct it to re-hear the LPA on condonation of delay, keeping in view the parameters indicated by this court in Arvind Yadav's case 2003(6) sec 144. Vinodan v Vishwanathan 12/2/2009. Partition of a building constructed on a small piece of land between brothers - a serious endeavour has been made by this Court to amicably settle the matter - this Court is granting long time to the appellant to vacate the portion of the building in his possession to avoid any inconvenience to the appellant. In case the appellant after one year of receiving the entire amount of Rs.5,50,000/- does not vacate the portion of the building in his possession, in that event, the Subordinate Court is directed to ensure that the possession is taken from the appellant and handed over to the respondent. Perhaps this solution may lead to ultimate peace between the families of two brothers. State of Maharashtra Etc. v Dhanendra Shriram Bhurle Etc. 11/2/2009. Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - sections 10, 13, 18 and 29, Arms Act, 1959 - section 3 and 4 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - sections 34 and 120B - trial under - challenge in these appeals is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, granting bail to the respondents - since the High Court had not kept the relevant parameters in view, while granting bail, the impugned order is set aside - the trial court to complete the trial as early as practicable preferably within six months from the date of receipt of this court's order. - Leave granted Prasad @ Hari Prasad Acharya v State of Karnataka 9/2/2009. Indian Penal Code, 1860 - sections 447, 376(2)(g) and 506 read with section 34 - conviction under - challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant - impugned judgment set aside and matter remitted to the High Court. - Leave granted State of Maharashtra v Krishnarao Dudhappa Shinde 5/2/2009. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 - section 5(1)(e) - conviction under - respondent a government servant was Inspector of Police when raid was conducted in his house - was sentenced to undergo minimum sentence of one year and was directed to pay a fine of Rs.2,50,000/- - the High Court did not examine the other aspects and only dealt with the applicability of Section 5(1)(e) of the Act on the factual position - matter remitted to the High Court. Ajab Singh and others v Antram and others 3/2/2009. Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - consolidation proceedings under - revision application under - one of the grievances which has been raised by the appellants herein is that the order of Consolidation Officer dated 23.12.1981 and that of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 29.11.1982, have been upset by the Deputy Director, Consolidation while entertaining a revision filed by the contesting respondents on 10.8.1993, which according to the appellant, is barred by limitation - Leave granted Jagdish Bagri v Rajendra Kumar Luhariwala and another 21/1/2009. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - section 138 - cheque of Rs. 1 lakh dishonoured - cheque issued as security - the High Court noticed that the appellant failed to pay Rs.2,30,000/- in instalments as agreed to and therefore because of default of payment cheque of Rupees one lakh was presented. In that sense there is no question of any security - It is true that the lawyers are expected to be vigilant once they accept a brief. But on the peculiar facts of the case this Court sets aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the High Court for a fresh consideration on merits.- Leave granted Suzanne Lousie Martin v State of Rajasthan and another 16/1/2009. Bail - granting of - and suspension of sentence - appeal - without expressing any opinion on the merits of the dispute and culpability of the accused, this Court is certainly of the opinion that this was not a fit case where the sentence awarded should have been suspended and the accused released on bail. The High Court was, thus, totally unjustified in granting bail to the accused, or in suspending the sentence.- Leave granted Huchamma (D) By Lrs. v State of Karnataka and others 14/1/2009. Inordinate Delay in filing appeal - dismissal - the High Court has rightly dismissed the writ appeal on the ground of inordinate delay holding that the preliminary notification acquiring the land in question including the lands of the appellants was issued on 15th July, 1982 and the final notification was issued on 16th August, 1985 and the award was passed on 12th May, 1998 and possession of the land in question was taken over on 30th June, 1998, and subsequent to that the writ petition was filed in the year 2000 - the High Court was justified in dismissing the writ appeal on the ground of inordinate delay in filing the appeal — interim order stands vacated.- Leave granted Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v Ram Prasad Varma and others 13/1/2009. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - section 166 - respondent suffered permanent disability as both legs amputated due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry - no case has been made out for interference with the rate of interest. The appeal is dismissed subject to the modification that from the gross income of the respondent, the amount of income tax as was applicable at the relevant time should be deducted. The Tribunal is directed to re-determine the amount of compensation in the light of this judgment. Buddu Khan v State of Uttarkhand 12/1/2009. Indian Penal Code, 1860 - section 302 - conviction under - upheld by the judgment of Division Bench - challenged in this appeal - exception 4 to Section 300 applies to the facts of the case. The appropriate conviction would be under Section 304 Part I IPC. Custodial sentence of 10 years would meet the ends of justice.- Leave granted Rajender Singh and another with Suraj Bhan with Ram Niwas v State of Haryana 9/1/2009. Indian Penal Code, 1860 - section 302 read with section 34 and section 342 read with section 34 - the accused filed three sets of appeals before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh - The occurrence as spoken by the eyewitnesses is fully established, therefore, all the appellants will be constructively liable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for the commission of the crime, though the fatal injury was inflicted by A-1, only as the other appellants participated in giving beatings to the deceased which caused injuries on other part of his body - no merit and substance in any of the submission made on behalf of the appellants. Prem Kumar v State of Rajasthan 7/1/2009. Indian Penal Code, 1860 - sections 306 and 304 part B and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - faced trial - acquittal - appeal - challanged - the principles which would govern and regulate the hearing of appeal by the High Court against an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court have been set out in innumerable cases of this Court - the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 clearly shows the greed of the accused who was persistently taunting and harassing the deceased for not having brought sufficient dowry. Therefore, the High Court was justified in upsetting the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court and directing her conviction. Syed Basheer Ahamed and others v Mohd. Jameel and another 6/1/2009. Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 - compensation with interest - entitlement - judgment of the High Court - challenged in this appeal - petition under section 166 of the Act - a bare argument by learned counsel for the appellants that the deceased had a potential of expanding his business, cannot be accepted as sufficient material to determine the future prospects of the deceased - ends of justice would be met if the income of the deceased is taken at Rs.5,500/- per month or Rs.66,000/- per annum - in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the practice is to deduct towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, one-third of the income in case he was married and one-half (50%) if he was a bachelor- Leave granted State of Karnataka v Bantara Sudhakara @ Sudha and another 18/7/2008. Indian Penal Code, 1860 - section 376 - acquittal under - appeal against - The High Court observed that there was possibility of two years variation and therefore it was to be taken that the victims were more than 16 years of age. The High Court accepted that there was sexual intercourse and rejected the plea of false implication - the High Court's conclusions in this regard are not only fallacious but contrary to the evidence on record. Shivappa Mallappa Pujar and others v Guddappa and others 17/7/2008. Land - occupancy rights - conferment - the impugned order of the High Court cannot be sustained simply for two reasons. First, the admission made by the respondent before the Tribunal on the basis of which the application was rejected by the Tribunal was not considered in proper manner. Secondly, after the order was passed by the Land Tribunal, a writ petition was filed challenging the aforesaid order of the Tribunal about seven to eight years thereafter. Appellate Authority while deciding the appeal in favour of the respondent did not at all consider the aforesaid admission from the respondent and also did not consider whether sufficient explanation was given for delay in filing the writ petition - impugned judgment set aside — matter sent back for re-hearing. Harijan Mangri Siddakka & others v Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & another 16/7/2008. Workmen's Compensation Act, 1928 - section 30(1) - appeal under - disposed by learned single Judge - order challenged in appeal - there is practically no discussion on the factual scenario as to whether there was any connection between the death and the use of the vehicle. It would depend upon the factual scenario in each case and there cannot be any strait jacket formula to be applied - the expression "use" in the Statute is with reference to "use of the motor vehicle". Whether there was a use of the motor vehicle has to be factually analyzed.- Leave granted Shashi Mohan Appellant versus State of M.P. 15/7/2008. Indian Penal Code, 1860 - section 302 read with section 34 - conviction under - under the provisions of Section 34 IPC the essence of the liability is to be found in the existence of a common intention animating the accused leading to the doing of a criminal act in furtherance of such intention. As a result of the application of principles enunciated in Section 34, when an accused is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34, in law it means that the accused is liable for the act which caused death of the deceased in the same manner as if it was done by him alone..- Leave granted Bharat Parikh v C.B.I. and another 14/7/2008 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - sections 207 and 238 - whether having framed charges against an accused, a Magistrate has the jurisdiction in law to recall such order on the ground that the prosecution had failed to comply with the provisions of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. - Leave granted Pankaj Kumar v State of Maharashtra and others 11/7/2008. Constitution of India -Article 227 read with section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - petition under - seeking quashing of the chargesheet and the consequential proceedings initiated against them in Special Case No.3 of 1991 pending in the court of Special Judge, Latur - the scope and ambit of powers of the High Court under Section 482, CrPC or Article 227 of the Constitution has been enunciated and reiterated by this Court in a series of decisions and several circumstances under which the High Court can exercise jurisdiction in quashing proceedings have been enumerated - though the powers possessed by the High Courts under the said provisions are very wide but these should be exercised in appropriate cases, ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist. The inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice.- Leave granted Satish Sitole v Ganga 10/7/2008. Hindu Marriage Act - section 13(1)(1a)(1b) - appellant filed matrimonial case - on grounds of cruelty and desertion under Section 13(1)(1a)(1b) of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of the marriage. Despite holding that the respondent had proved his case on grounds of cruelty and desertion, the trial court did not grant a decree - for divorce, but thought it appropriate to pass a decree of judicial separation instead - whether a marriage which is otherwise dead emotionally and practically should be continued for name sake. Seema v Ashwani Kumar 9/7/2008. Marriages - compulsory registration - directions were given to the States and the Union Territories in the matter of framing necessary statutes regarding compulsory registration of marriages - different States and Union Territories have placed on record details of the compliance made - let all the States and Union Territories who have not given specific details, file affidavits within four months from today. Balwant Singh Narwal and others v State of Haryana and others 8/7/2008. Seniority - the appellants, appointed as Principals between 1995 and 2000 (either by direct recruitment or promotion) are aggrieved by the seniority given to respondents 4 to 16 appointed as Principals on 26.5.2000, with retrospective effect from 2.6.1994 - the State Government was justified in giving them only notional seniority and placing them immediately below the other 16 candidates selected in the common merit list (published on 1.10.1993) and appointed on 2.6.1994. Kusuma Ankama Rao v State of Andhra Pradesh 7/7/2008. Indian Penal Code, 1860 - section 302 - conviction under - an extra-judicial confession, if voluntary and true and made in a fit state of mind, can be relied upon by the court. The confession will have to be proved like any other fact. The value of the evidence as to confession, like any other evidence, depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it has been made M.Saravana Porselvi v A.R. Chandrashekar @ Parthiban & others 27/5/2008. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - section 13(1)(e) - petition under - customary divorce - registered - permanent alimony received by the wife - there does not exist any period of limitation in respect of an offence under Section 494, as the maximum period of punishment which can be imposed therefore is seven years- Leave granted Illa Roy Chowdhury V Shyamali Das and others 16/5/2008. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - sections 30 and 31 - an application for reference under - an attempt on the part of the First Respondent to get herself imp leaded as party in the Reference Petition did not fructify. The said order attained finality. It does not appear that the said respondent was not sure as to whether such an application had been filed or not - what would be the effect of the order of the Calcutta High Court allowing the First Respondent to file an appropriate application before the Collector for reference in terms of Sections 30 and 31 of the Act which was a conditional order - no fruitful purpose would be served in allowing the matter to proceed pursuant to the observations made by the learned Single Judge. - Leave granted Amol Singh v State of M.P. 15/15/2008. Indian Penal Code, 1860 - section 302 and 34 - conviction and sentence - the discrepancies, make the last declaration doubtful. The nature of the inconsistencies is such that there are certainly material. That being so, it would be unsafe to convict the appellant. The conviction is set aside and appellant is acquitted of the charges. - Leave granted Ramachandran v R. Udhayakumar & others 13/5/2008. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - section 482 - prayer for directory the respondent to withdraw the litigation - and to entrust the same to the file of Central Bureau of Investigation - the direction of the High Court for re-investigation or fresh investigation are clearly indefensible.- Leave granted Dadu Dayalu Mahasabha, Jaipur (Trust) v Mahant Ram Niwas & another 12/5/2008. Code of Civil Procedure - order II Rule 2 - Res Judicata - principals - applicability of. - Leave granted T.Thimmaiah (D) By Lrs. v Venkatachala Raju (D) BY Lrs. 9/5/2008. Cr.P.C. Order 47 Rule 1 - order made in review - challenged - from a bare perusal of the judgment in review, it is clear that the principles laid down under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC have been completely ignored - we, however, give liberty to the respondent herein to challenge the judgment dated 16th February 1999, if so advised. Tarakanath Kar v Lipika Kar 7/5/2008. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — section 125 - application filed by respondent Lipika - case transferred - Chandana filed application for being impleaded - in the subsequent order dated 5.7.2006 the High Court highlighted the limited jurisdiction for rectification/modification under Section 362 of the Code - Leave granted Madhuban v State of U.P. 5/5/2008. Indian Penal Code,1860 - sections 302, 323 and 394 - conviction - confirmed by High Court - appeal - it appears that the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant before the High Court could not make oral submissions because of infection in vocal cord - Leave granted Samita Bhattacharjee v Kulashekar Bhattacharjee 12/2/2008. Transfer of divorce suit - inspite of prayer for adjournment having been granted, no one appears to oppose the prayer for transfer on behalf of the respondent - considering the facts that the wife - petitioner herein - is staying at Andul Purba Para, P.O. Andul Mouri, P.S. Sankrail, District Howrah with a minor child in her paternal home, court is of the view that the Title Suit (Divorce) No.98 of 2006 titled as Dr. Kulashekhar Bhattacharjee Vs. Smt. Samita Bhattacharjee pending before the Family Court West Tripura, Agartala, be transferred to the Court of learned District Judge, Howrah, West Bengal. State of U.P. v Jagram & other 12/2/2008. Indian Penal code, 1860 - sections 302, 324 read with section 34 - conviction by trial court - set aside by the Division Bench - several discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses and the prosecution version did not inspire confidence. - Leave granted Sirisia Sthal, Imli Chati, Muzaffarpur & others v State of Bihar & others 11/2/2008. Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of ceiling Area and Acquisition of surplus Land) Act, 1961 - vires of certain provisions challenged - writ - dismissed appeal - Since the High Court has not applied its mind to the challenge raised and has erroneously referred to the 9th Schedule to the Constitution, it would be appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the High Court and remit the matter to it for fresh consideration in accordance with law. B.K. Sri Harsha (D) By L.R. and another v M/s Bharath Heavy Electricals Ltd 8/2/2008. Code of civil Procedure, 1908 - section 96 - Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court dismissing the First Appeals filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Union of India and others v Rajesh Vyas 7/2/2008. Rajasthan High Court ordinance, 1949 - section 18 - appeals under - order of discharge - show cause notice - the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench were wrong in holding that the reply given to the show cause notice was not considered. Balwant Singh and others v State of Punjab 6/2/2008. Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 302 - conviction under by Additional Session Judge - appeal - dismissal by High Court appeal - there is strong circumstantial evidence that they were caused by the accused - this circumstantial evidence is sufficient to uphold the conviction because it contains all the links in the chain which connect the accused with the incident V. Subbulakshmi & others v S. Lakshmi & another 5/2/2008. Motor accident claim - by the owner of the vehicle - maintainability - in the instant case, the owner of the bus was an aggrieved person. He could maintain an appeal of his own. Section 173 of the Act confers a right on any aggrieved person to prefer an appeal from an award - as to compensation - Leave granted Anand Sharad Chandra Oka v University of Mumbai and others 4/2/2008. Words and Phrases - aggrieved party - meaning of - electoral roll for electing members of the Senate - university calling for applications from graduates - the writ-petitioner obtained B.A. Degree from Bombay University. Thus, the writ-petitioner was graduated from the respondent-University. His name, therefore, can be registered in the electoral roll for electing members of Senate. He was not, therefore, an 'aggrieved party'.- Leave granted State of Orissa and another v M/s. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. and other 4/2/2008. Writ Petition -- Technical bids of VISA and TISCO could not have been rejected at the threshold without proper evaluation in terms of eligibility condition set out in the concerned advertisement - it would be desirable for the State Government to ensure that the technical bids and the revised financial bids to be submitted within three weeks as directed earlier, be evaluated and informed Shfaq Khan and another v State of U.P. and other 1/2/2008.