LATEST SC JUDGEMENTS

2009 SCCL.COM 3026(Case No: Criminal Appeal No(s). 891-892 of 2002 With Criminal Appeal Nos. 1811-1812 of 2009) 

Raj Narain Singh Appellant(s) versus State of U.P. and others Respondent(s)

Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 9/18/2009.

Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari and Hon'ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma. 

Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sec. 302,307,323,342 r/w 34 — punishment of murder, attempt to murder, voluntary causing grievous hurt with common intention — Arms Act — sec. 27 & 30 — A1 to A3 charged for committing murder and assaulting — trial court convicted all the 3 accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment with fine and also directed all the accused to pay Rs. 1.5 lacs as compensation to PW-1 — HC set aside the orders of the trial court and by its impugned judgement acquitted all the accused — hence the appeal — held no inconsistency in the statements of 3 witnesses — no material contradiction in the cross-examination and the FIR been fully supported by the statements of the witnesses — cause of death was the gun shot from a distance of 3 to 6 feet on the vital part of the body and from excessive bleeding and shock — no injuries found on the bodies of the accused — no recovery of any bomb materials or detection of any signs of damage to the petrol pump by the deceased — exercise of right of private defence by the accused persons without any basis — set aside the order of the HC and the decision of the Trial Court restored.

2009 SCCL.COM 3025(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 6128 of 2008) 

Ram Sukh Appellant(s) versus Dinesh Aggarwal Respondent(s)

Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 9/18/2009.

Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain and Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. L. Dattu. 

Subject Index: Representation of the People Act, 1951 — section 100(1)(d)(iv) and 83(1)(a) — grounds for declaring election to be void and contents of the election petition — respondent 1 declared elected to the State Legislative Assembly — appellant challenged the election on ground that the returning officer failed to circulate the attested signatures of his election agent to various polling stations — HC concluded that the concise statement of the appellant about material facts completely lacked and mandatory requirement of an affidavit in support of the allegations of corrupt practices not complied with — whether the election petitioner set out "material facts" in his petition? — No — whether the alleged omission on the part of the Returning Officer ipso facto "materially affected" the election result? — No — election petitioner not averred specifically in what manner the result of the election was materially affected due to the omission on the part of the Returning Officer — no interference in the orders of the HC — appeal dismissed with no cost.

2009 SCCL.COM 3023(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 640 of 2005) 

Ashok Singh Appellant versus State of U.P. Respondent

Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 9/18/2009.

Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.M. Panchal. 

Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302/34 — punishment of murder with common intention — three accused persons charged for the murder of the deceased — trial Court relying on the statements of PW3 & PW4 convicted all the accused and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life — High Court granted the benefit of doubt to two accused while dismissing the appeal of appellant — relevancy to the statements of PW3 & PW4 — ocular evidence fully borne out by the medical evidence — appeal dismissed — confirmed the judgement of the High Court.

2009 SCCL.COM 3024(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 2098 of 2000) 

Bibi Zafira Khatoon and others Appellant(s) versus MD. Hussain and another Respondent(s)

Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 9/17/2009.

Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha. 

Subject Index: Bihar Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 — section 12 — binding nature of the order of the Court on all persons in occupation of the building — suit for eviction of respondent 2 from the residential house on the grounds of personal and bonafide necessity and default in payment of rents — title suit filed by respondent 1 for specific performance of the agreement of sale executed between respondent 1 and the appellant — trial court decreed for eviction of respondent 2 and dismissed the suit for specific performance of the agreement for sale on ground that respondent 1 not put in possession of the suit premises — appellants filed an application for execution of decree against respondent 1 — dismissed by executing court — respondent 1 not produced any evidence before the trial court to show that he was inducted as a tenant in the suit premises with express permission of the landlords/appellant — on the applicability of section 12 of the Act, respondent 1 clearly flawed — set aside the impugned judgement of execution court — execution application filed by the appellants allowed.

2009 SCCL.COM 3021(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 6376 of 2009) 

Subhash Appellant versus The Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and another Respondents

Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 9/17/2009.

Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha. 

Subject Index: Dismissal from service — negligence on the part of the appellant/driver in driving the bus — bus ramped on the railing of the bridge resulting in damage to the bus — appellant dismissed from service — First Appellate Authority set aside the order dismissing the appellant from service and directed the appellant to be appointed afresh without any monetary benefits for the past service — held the appellant's misconduct established — none of the passengers injured in the accident — the order of the First Appellate Authority modified that appellant would be treated to have been reinstated with continuity in service but without back wages — appeal partly allowed.

2009 SCCL.COM 3020(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 2506 of 2004) 

K.V. Mohammed Zakir Appellant versus Regional Sports Centre Respondent

Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 9/16/2009.

Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly. 

Subject Index: Tender agreement — work not completed on time on account of delay on the part of the respondent — arbitral award in favour of claimant for Rs. 19,51,334.25/- with interest @10% on the principal amount of Rs. 18,86,700.23/- from the date of award till the date of decree — where the arbitrator acts within jurisdiction, 'the reasonableness of the reasons' given by the arbitrator not open to scrutiny by Courts till the reasons so 'outrageous in their defiance of logic' that they shock the conscience of the court — no interference with the award of the arbitrator — impugned judgement of the High Court set aside — award of the arbitrator restored — appeal allowed with no costs.

2009 SCCL.COM 3016(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 6309 of 2009 With C.A. No. 6310 of 2009) 

Bajaj Auto Limited Appellant versus TVS Motor Company Limited Respondent

Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 9/16/2009.

Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly. 

Subject Index: Indian Patents Act, 1973 — infringement of patent number — nomination and appointment of receiver by the Hon'ble Chief Justice — directed the respondent to submit sale records/accounts fortnightly to the receiver for verification — receiver to submit his report thereafter to the learned Bench of the High Court — directed to send judgement's copy before Hon'ble Chief Justice for appropriate directions — appeal disposed with no costs.

2009 SCCL.COM 3029(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 4849-4850 of 2000) 

Sita Ram Bhandar Society, New Delhi Appellant versus Lt. Governor, Govt. of N.C.T. Delhi and others Respondents

Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 9/15/2009.

Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi. 

Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act — Sections 4, 5A and 6 — notification and declaration of land acquisition and exempted land — notification issued — appellant filed objections under Section 5A that the land be exempted from the proposed acquisition — possession of 1933 Bighas and 2 Biswas taken by the collector and handed over to the beneficiary department — held that while taking possession of a large area of land with a large no. of owners, would be impossible for the Collector or the Revenue official to enter each Bigha or biswas and to take possession — no question ever been raised by the appellant with regard to the presence of a wall in the objections — assuming that the appellant had re-entered the land on account of the various interim orders granted by the courts, or even otherwise, it would have no effect for two reasons, (1) that the suits/petitions were ultimately dismissed and (2) that the land once having vested in the Government by virtue of Section 16 of the Act, re-entry by the land owner would not obliterate the consequences of vesting — appeals dismissed with costs at Rs. 2 lacs.

2009 SCCL.COM 3014(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 6261 of 2009) 

N. Eswari W/o Adhinarayana Rao Appellant versus K. Swarajya Lakshmi W/o Late K.V.L.N.A. Sastry Respondent

Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 9/15/2009.

Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha. 

Subject Index: A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 — Section 10(3)(a)(i)(a) read with Section Section 10(2)(i) — application for eviction of the tenant/appellant — on ground that the landlady/respondent bonafide required the premises and also the tenant a willful defaulter in payment of rent — rejection of eviction petition by Rent Controller & Appellant Authority — whether High Court justified in re-appreciating the facts and setting aside the order of the Courts below? — No — respondent failed to prove that the tenant/appellant was defaulter in payment of rent — requirement of premises by the respondent not genuine — impugned order of High Court set aside — orders of Rent Controller & the Appellate Authority restored — application of eviction rejected — appeal allowed with no costs.

2009 SCCL.COM 3011(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 6257 of 2009) 

FGP Ltd. Appellant(s) versus Saleh Hooseini Doctor and another Respondent(s)

Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 9/15/2009.

Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly. 

Subject Index: Tenancy Agreement — Transfer of Property Act — Section 53-A — part performance of the contract — appellant entered into tenancy agreement with original owner — contention of appellant that owner entered into another agreement and sold the flat at Rs. 5 lacs to the appellant — entire sale consideration been received by the original owner but sale in term of sale agreement not completed — appellant filed suit for specific performance — trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the LRs of the original owner and directed appellant to handover vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises — High Court not interfered with the orders in revision — no case for part performance of the contract — no evidence by the appellant to show how it came to the possession of the suit premises — appellant after more than 10 years of the said execution of the alleged agreement for sale asked the owner to complete the sale — doctrine of part performance under Section 53-A cannot be invoked — no material irregularity in the orders of the Courts below — appeal dismissed with no cost.

2009 SCCL.COM 3012(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 1766 of 2009 With Criminal Appeal No. 1767 of 2009) 

D. Venkatasubramaniam and others Appellants Abinesh Babu and others Appellants versus M.K. Mohan Krishnamachari and another Respondents

Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 9/14/2009.

Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran and Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. Sudershan Reddy. 

Subject Index: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 482 — inherent powers of High Court — IVR entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with respondent for sale of 600 acres of land at Rs. 28 lakhs per acre — respondent transferred only 64 acres of land in favour of IVR — IVR issued legal notice to the respondent to complete the sale but no response — IVR terminated the (MOU) and purchased the whole land from the owners of the land — respondent lodged FIR against appellants alleging commission of offences under Section 406 and 420 of IPC — while investigation was in progress, respondent moved to High Court seeking directions to the police to seize Rs. 2,28,00,000/- from the appellants — whether High Court under Section 482 of CrPC interfere with the statutory power of investigation by police into a cognizable offence? — statutory obligation and duty of the police to investigate the crime and the Courts ought not to interfere and guide the investigating agency — as to in what manner the investigation has to proceed — the power under Section 482 of the Code can be exercised by the High Court either suo motu or on an application (i) to secure the ends of justice; (ii) the High Court may make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code; (iii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court — High Court not recorded reasons for which the matter required interference — impugned order of the High Court set aside — appeal allowed.

2009 SCCL.COM 3010(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 854 of 2002) 

Satish Narayan Sawant Appellant versus State of Goa Respondent

Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 9/14/2009.

Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari and Hon'ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma. 

Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 302, 323, 143, 147 & 149 — punishment for murder, voluntarily causing greivous hurt, rioting, unlawful assembly with common object — order of acquittal by Trial court — acquittal order set aside by the High Court and passed order awarding life imprisonment to appellant — A-2 & A-3 held guilty of an offence under Section 323 read with Section 34, IPC — delay in transmitting the FIR to the Magistrate not proved — the eye-witnesses although related witnesses, were natural witnesses — held that ocular evidence cannot be brushed aside only because it is not in consonance with the medical evidence — only one main injury caused due to stabbing which was fatal and other injuries only supercial in nature — cannot be said that there was any intention to kill or to inflict an injury of a particular degree of seriousness — held that the provocation and the incident happened at the spur of the moment — conviction of appellant under Section 304, Part-II, IPC and awarded 7 years imprisonment — appeal disposed.

2009 SCCL.COM 3022(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 6201 of 2009) 

Zenit Mataplast P. Ltd. Appellant versus State of Maharashtra and others Respondent

Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 9/11/2009.

Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir and Hon'ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan. 

Subject Index: Allotment of land — Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 — Sections 14 and 15 — general powers of Corporation — appellant, a Private Ltd. Company submitted an application for allotment of 8000 sq. yards land from the adjacent vacant land — application rejected by the respondent-2 — respondent-2 allotted 17 acres in favour of R-4 who took the possession of the land — agreement for licence/lease executed — a part of open space allotted to R-5 for parking of vehicles — appellant made various representations that the rejection of its application and allotment of land to R-4 and R-5 discriminatory and violative of laws and particularly the statutory requirement provided for allotment of land to the neighbouring unit holders — allotment to R-4 been made under the directions of the State Government to the Corporation — allotment in favour of R-4 passed in undue haste showing favouritism being a big industrial unit — article 14 of the Constitution stood violated — whether High Court justified in not granting the interim relief in favour of the appellant? — No — no development took place for more than two years of taking the possession of the land by R-4 — appeal allowed — interim order continued in operation till the writ petition finally decided by the High Court.

2009 SCCL.COM 3019(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 6235-6236 of 2009) 

Secretary, Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Bailhongal Appellant versus Quasami Janab Ajmatalla Salamulla and another Respondents

Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 9/11/2009.

Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran and Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. Sudershan Reddy. 

Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act — determination of compensation — 8 acres 7 guntas of respondent's land acquired for the benefit of the Appellant Market Committee — determined compensation as Rs. 36,000/- per acre — reference Court — increased it to Rs. 4 lacs per acre — High Court reduced the compensation with marginal reduction to Rs. 3,75,200/- per acre — hence this appeal — no basis for calculating the value of compensation — no explanation why other sale transactions ignored — no finding that the land at serial No. 6 is comparable to the acquired land and have similar development potential — no reasoning why the deduction towards developmental charges restricted to 33% instead of the standard deduction of 50% to 67% applicable to agricultural land — matter remanded back to the High Court for fresh disposal — set aside the judgement of the High Court — appeal allowed.

2009 SCCL.COM 3017(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 5991 of 2002) 

Ramesh Chandra Agrawal Appellant versus Regency Hospital Ltd. and others Respondents

Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 9/11/2009.

Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu. 

Subject Index: Medical negligence/deficiency in service — appellant operated for decompression of spinal cord by Laminectomy D-3 to D-6 by doctor/respondent-2 of respondent-1/hospital — operation unsuccessful — second surgery also unsuccessful as the T.B. infection not cured — some relief in health of appellant after third operation — appellant filed complaint before the National Commission alleging medical negligence on the part of respondents 1 to 3 — complaint dismissed due to lack of expert evidence/opinion to prove medical negligence against respondents — held lack of care by the Assistant Registrar on failing to forward the records of the treatment to the expert — the Registrar of the Commission directed to forward all the records of treatment filed by the appellant for expert opinion — commission to pass fresh order in accordance with law — impugned order set aside — appeal allowed with no costs.

2009 SCCL.COM 3013(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 1758 of 2009) 

State through Central Bureau of Investigation Appellant versus Parmeshwaran Subramani and another Respondents

Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 9/11/2009.

Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran and Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. Sudershan Reddy. 

Subject Index: Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 12 & 19 — punishment for abetment of offences defined in Section 7 or 11 and previous sanction for prosecution — preliminary enquiry against respondent-1 for purchasing 48 ready built flats for Customs Department whose actual market value was much less than the price paid and also for offering and delivering bribe — chargesheet filed against the respondents for the offences punishable under Section 120B of IPC r/w Section 12 of Act, 1988 — discharge of the respondents for want of sanction under Section 19 of the Act — whether any previous sanction necessary for taking cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 12? — No — Section 19 of the Act direct the Courts not to take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 only, except with the previous sanction of the Government — impugned judgement of the High Court set aside — appeal allowed.

2009 SCCL.COM 3018(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 5780 of 1999) 

Christian Mica Industries Ltd., Calcutta Appellant versus Vinayak Mica Exports Co. and others Respondents

Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 9/10/2009.

Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha. 

Subject Index: Extension of time period — Division Bench of the High Court granted extension of time and permitted the respondents to remove or lift mica scraps from Dump No. 1 & 2 and the main factory shed of the appellant, not exceeding the quantity of 15,000/- MTs — appellant alleged that the respondent lifted mica scraps more than the scraps they were allowed to lift — held the time granted by the Division Bench had long expired — appeal become infructuous — parties free to agitate the question before appropriate Court — appeal disposed of with no costs.

2009 SCCL.COM 3015(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 6186 of 2009) 

Padubidri Damodar Shenoy Appellant versus Indian Airlines Limited and another Respondents

Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 9/10/2009.

Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha. 

Subject Index: Service Regulations — Regulation 12 — voluntarily retirement — appellant gave notice to the respondent of his intention to retire voluntarily after 3 months from the date of notice on completion of appellant's 29 years of service — no response from respondent's side — employee never treated that there has been cessation of employment on expiry of 3 months notice — appellant requested to release him and pay all his legal dues — held that the notice for voluntarily retirement by an employee under Regulation 12(b) subject to approval by the competent authority and that approval was not granted — voluntary retirement of the respondent never came into effect — right to accept or reject the offer of voluntary retirement although has to be exercised within a reasonable time but does not give any right to the employee, if not accepted within reasonable time, to hold that the employment has come to an end — appeal dismissed with no costs.

2009 SCCL.COM 3009(Case No: Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 78 of 2009) 

Balaji Coke Industry Pvt. Ltd. Petitioner/Appellant versus M/s Maa Bhagwati Coke (Guj) Pvt. Ltd. Respondent

Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 9/9/2009.

Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph. 

Subject Index: Transfer petition — specific High Seas Sale Agreement between petitioner and respondent — clause 14 of the said agreement provided that the sale contract would be subject to Kolkata jurisdiction — dispute arose between the parties — whether, notwithstanding the mutual agreement to make the High Seas Sale Agreement subject to Kolkata jurisdiction, it would be open to the respondent to contend that since a part of the cause of action purportedly arose within the jurisdiction in the Bhavnagar Court, the application filed under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before Bhavnagar Court, would still be maintainable? — No — parties knowingly and voluntarily agreed that the contract arising out of the said agreement would be subject to Kolkata jurisdiction, even if the courts in Gujarat also had jurisdiction to entertain the action arising out of agreement, it has to held that disputes decided in Kolkata by an Arbitrator in Kolkata will be valid — transfer petition allowed with no costs.

2009 SCCL.COM 3006(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 5241 of 2002) 

Steel Authority of India Ltd. Appellant versus Gupta Brother Steel Tubes Ltd. Respondent

Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 9/9/2009.

Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha. 

Subject Index: Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 — Sections 30/33 — to set aside the arbitral award — an agreement between appellant (SAIL) and respondent under 'Full Requirement Supply Scheme' with an arbitration clause — dispute arose between parties — arbitrator appointed — arbitral award in favour of respondent/claimant — appellant filed petition contending that arbitrator entered into a time barred claim and also exercised his power beyond clause 7.2 (material) of the agreement — whether the breaches alleged by the respondent covered by the stipulations under clause 7.2? — Yes — no impediment for the parties to a contract to make provision of liquidated damages for specific breaches only leaving other types of breaches to be dealt with as unliquidated damages — once the arbitrator construed clause 7.2 by giving elaborate reasons, not open to the courts to interfere with the award of the arbitrator — appeal dismissed with no costs.

2009 SCCL.COM 3005(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 7075-7076 of 2005) 

The Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar-I Appellant(s) versus M/s. Champdany Industries Limited Respondent(s)

Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 9/8/2009.

Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly. 

Subject Index: Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 — mis-classification as jute carpets — respondent, manufacturer of carpets in which jute always predominates by weight over each of the other single textile materials — show-cause notice by Revenue that the surface of the carpet being entirely of polypropylene, cannot be classified as jute carpet — based on relevant materials, expert opinion and after analyzing the evidence on records, section Notes and Chapter Notes, contention of the Revenue rejected — no interference in the orders of Tribunal — revenue appeal dismissed with no costs.

2009 SCCL.COM 2099(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 1732 of 2009) 

Hazari Lal Das Appellant versus State of West Bengal and another Respondents

Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 9/8/2009.

Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha. 

Subject Index: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438 — application for anticipatory bail — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 403, 409, 420 and 467/34 — forged documents and misappropriation of funds — appellant/accused released on anticipatory bail — complainant filed petition for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to accused/appellant — held nothing on record for interference or attempt to interfere with due course of administration of justice by the appellant — no record that concession granted to appellant been abused in any manner — appeal allowed.

2009 SCCL.COM 2098(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 3828 of 2007) 

Commissioner of Central Excise Hyderabad-I Appellant(s) versus M/s. Charminar Non-Wovens Limited Respondent(s)

Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 9/8/2009.

Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly. 

Subject Index: Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 — concessional rate of duty — show-cause notice issued by Revenue against respondent alleging to had done mis-classification of carpets and mis-utilization of the benefit, thus clearing the goods at concessional rate of duty of 5% — whether non-woven carpets having exposed surface of polypropylene are classified under 'jute carpet' to justify concessional rate of duty or classifiable under 'other carpets'? — based on relevant materials and after analyzing the evidence on records, section Notes and Chapter Notes, the contentions of the Revenue rejected — revenue appeal dismissed with no costs.

2009 SCCL.COM 2097(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 6136 of 2009) 

Allwyn Housing Colony Welfare Association Appellant versus Government of Andhra Pradesh and others Respondents

Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 9/8/2009.

Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly. 

Subject Index: Allotment/alienation of land — writ petition filed by appellant challenging the alienation/allotment of disputed land to respondent-5 — respondent-5 handed over plots in the said property to various persons who claimed to be members of the respondent no. 5 society — matter remanded to the Division Bench of the High Court for fresh decision in accordance with law — appeal allowed with no costs.

2009 SCCL.COM 2095(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 3758 of 2006 With Civil Appeal Nos. 5631, 4686 & 5845 of 2006 And Civil Appeal No.5342 of 2007) 

Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III Appellant(s) versus M/s. UNI Products (I) Ltd. and others Respondent(s)

Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 9/8/2009.

Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly. 

Subject Index: Central Excise Act, 1944 — mis-classification of goods as non-woven jute floor coverings — respondents, manufacturer of non-woven floor coverings made of jute — based on relevant materials, expert opinion and after analyzing the evidence on records, section Notes and Chapter Notes, contentions of the Revenue rejected — held the predominance test of the assessee's products to be done taking the product manufactured by it as a whole — no interference in the orders of tribunal — appeal dismissed with not cost.

2009 SCCL.COM 2083(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 5952 of 2002) 

Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. and another Appellants versus ASP Sealing Products Ltd. Respondent

Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 9/8/2009.

Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi and Hon'ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan. 

Subject Index: Electricity Supply (Consumers) Regulations, 1984 — Board sanctioned electric connections of 400 KVA & 200 KVA at 2 occasions for the respondent's factory — electricity supply discontinued on the request of respondent — after 5 months of the discontinuation, Executive Engineer asked the respondent to pay Rs. 6,13,592/- towards minimum charges for 6 months — whether the respondent, who was a consumer of electricity supplied by U.P.S.E.B. liable to pay minimum charges in terms of second proviso to para 11 of agreement read with clause 17(ii) of Regulations, 1984 after disconnection of the supply of electricity? — Yes— if the supply of electricity disconnected at consumer's request or on account of default of payment before expiry of 2 years specified in the agreement and Regulations, then Consumer bound to pay minimum charges for remaining period or for 6 months from the date of disconnection — fresh agreement entered into between the parties and after 9 months of execution of fresh agreement, a request was made for disconnection of the supply of electricity — respondent liable to pay minimum charges — appeal allowed.

2009 SCCL.COM 3000(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 2213 of 2001 With Civil Appeal No. 2214 of 2001 Civil Appeal No. 2215 of 2001 Civil Appeal Nos. 2216-2220 of 2001 Civil Appeal Nos. 2221-2227 of 2001Civil Appeal No. 2228 of 2001 Civil Appeal Nos. 2090-2101 of 2004) 

Charan Dass (Dead) by LRs. Appellant(s) Kishan Singh Appellant Basti Ram Appellant Devki Nand Appellant Jai Kishan and others Appellants Harpal versus Himachal Pradesh Housing and Urban Development Authority and others Respondent(s)

Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 9/7/2009.

Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly. 

Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 4 & 18 — notification for acquisition of land & reference — notification under Section 4 was issued and published for acquisition of land — quality of lands fell in different categories and announced compensation @ Rs. 32,073/-, Rs. 24,288/- and Rs. 7,785/- per bigha — appellant filed Reference applications — High Court enhanced the average amount on account of escalation of the prices and determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 1.5 lakhs per bigha with 40% deduction towards development charges — held the location and the date of sale relevant for determining the market value of the acquired land — no legal or factual infirmity in the approach of High Court in ascertaining the market value of the land — deduction of 30% towards development charges — compensation to be assessed at Rs. 1,05,000/- per Bigha.

2009 SCCL.COM 3003(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 1695 of 2009) 

Md. Ibrahim and others Appellants versus State of Bihar and another Respondents

Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 9/4/2009.

Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha. 

Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 323, 341, 420, 467, 471 & 504 — offence of forgery, cheating, insult, wrongful restraint, hurt — trial Court framed charges against accused 1-3 — an appeal by the accused persons for quashing the orders — whether the material on record prima facie constitutes any offences against accused? — whether the A-1, in executing and registering the two sale deeds purporting to sell a property can be said to have made and executed false documents? — No — accused not tried to deceive complainant either by making a false or misleading representation or by any other action or omission, neither they offered him any fraudulent or dishonest inducement to deliver property — statement attributed to appellants 1 & 2 cannot be said to amount to an 'insult with intent to provoke breach of peace' under Section 504 — charges quashed insofar as offences under Section 420, 467, 471 IPC — charges under Section 323 (causing hurt) & 341 (wrongful restraint), IPC left undisturbed — order of High Court set aside — appeal partly allowed.

2009 SCCL.COM 3001(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 3911 of 2003 With C.A. Nos. 676, 1739, 1764, 2236, 2476 of 2006, C.A. Nos. 3718 of 2005 & C.A No.6032 of 2009 @ SLP(C) No. 2844 of 2006) 

Bihar School Examination Board Appellant versus Suresh Prasad Sinha Respondent

Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 9/4/2009.

Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju. 

Subject Index: Negligence/deficiency in service — Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(o) — 'service' — complaint filed by the respondent on behalf of his minor son — son of the respondent and another student allotted the same Roll No. — Centre Superintendent allotted a new Roll No. to minor child and communicated for the same to the Board office — result not published and hence the child re-appeared in the Board Examination and suffered a loss of 1 year — District Consumer Forum ordered the Board to pay compensation of Rs. 12,000/- with an interest @12% to the complainant — whether a statutory School Examination Board comes within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act? — No — any service rendered for a consideration is presumed to be a commercial activity — in course of conduct of the examination, evaluation of answer-scripts, furnishing marksheets, there may be some negligence, omission or deficiency, does not convert the Board into a service-provider for a consideration, nor convert the examinee into a consumer — impugned orders of the Consumer Fora set aside — complaint under CP Act, 1986 not be maintainable against Board — appeal allowed with no costs.

2009 SCCL.COM 2094(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 5033 of 2006 With Civil Appeal No. 5777 of 2006) 

P.C. Thomas Appellant versus P.M. Ismail and others Respondents

Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 9/4/2009.

Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha. 

Subject Index: Representation of People Act, 1951 — Sections 123(3) & 123(5) — corrupt practices and undue influence — C.A.1 — High Court declared the election of the appellant to the Parliamentary Constituency as void and election petitioner declared elected under Section 101(b) of the Act in his place — whether charges of corrupt practices established against the appellant were correct? — Yes — election agent of the appellant arranged for printing of Ext. P1 & P2 — appellant paid the printing charges and party workers distributed documents in the houses of electors — though consent of the appellant for printing Ext. P1 & P2 not proved by direct evidence but inference possible that the circulation of Ext. P1 & P2 was with the knowledge of the appellant — no interference to the order of High Court — appeal dismissed with no cost — C.A. 2 — appellant-2 contended that High Court should have declared him as elected for the Parliamentary Constituency instead of election petitioner while setting aside the election of appellant in C.A. 1 — fresh election to the said Constituency already took place — appeal infructuous and thus dismissed.

2009 SCCL.COM 3008(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 4227 of 2003) 

Gangai Vinayagar Temple and others Appellants versus Meenakashi Ammal and others Respondents

Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 9/3/2009.

Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly. 

Subject Index: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Section 11 — 'Res-judicata' — C.A. 1 — execution of lease deed by appellant trust in favour of lessee for 15 years to erect a theatre — original lessee died — site on which theatre stood was sold by the trustees — injunction granted restraining the appellants from interfering with the respondent's possession till the expiry of the period of lease — 2 suits filed by trust during pendency of first suit and claimed arrears of rent from the lessee issuance of title — held that once the appellant/defendants conceded that no forcibly eviction of plaintiff/respondents, then the suit straightway dismissed on this ground — not necessary for the Court to go into any other issue — C.A. 2 — facts of the case not disputed — whether the Court while entertaining an appeal from judgment and decree in Suit `A' can reverse a finding rendered in Suit `B', especially, when no appeal was filed from the findings rendered in Suit 'B'? — whether principle of Res-judicata can be ignored by courts, inter-alia, on the ground that the finding reached by a Court of competent jurisdiction in another Suit was unnecessary and whether this Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 should step in to prevent an erosion of the doctrine of Res-judicata — unless decision on the title of the trustees rendered, dismissal of the suit cannot be reached — question of title of the appellant and the nature of the trust property directly and substantially in issue — divergence of opinion in separate judgements — directed the matter to be placed before another Bench nominated by Hon'ble The Chief Justice.

2009 SCCL.COM 3004(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 1199 of 2001) 

State of U.P. Appellant versus Santosh Kumar Respondent

Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 9/3/2009.

Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi. 

Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 304-B, 498-A read with Section 34 — dowry death, husband or relative of husband of a women subjecting her to cruelty — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Section 3 & 4 — penalty for demanding and taking dowry — after analyzing the entire evidence and on the basis of three dying declarations, trial Court convicted the accused under Section 302 and 498-A, IPC and under Section 3 & 4 of the Dowry Act — High Court passed the orders for acquittal of accused — hence the appeal —doctor certified that the deceased was in a fit mental condition to give statement — veracity of dying declarations proved beyond any shadow of doubt — impugned judgement of High Court set aside and that of the trial Court restored — appeal allowed — directed the accused to surrender.

2009 SCCL.COM 3002(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 634 of 2002 With Criminal Appeal No. 635 of 2002) 

Chikkarangaiah and others Appellants versus State of Karnataka Respondent

Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 9/2/2009.

Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari and Hon'ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma. 

Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 326 & 149 — voluntary causing grievous hurt, unlawful assembly with common object — case related to land dispute — conviction and sentence to accused persons for guilty of offence under Section 326 & 149 — deceased and PW-6 were brutally assaulted by the accused persons — deceased implicated 8 accused who assaulted him, at the earliest opportunity when he made a statement to the police on the very next day and testified in Court to that effect — 8 accused chased and attacked PW-6 clearly make out a case for an offence under Section 326 read with 149 IPC — upheld the conviction of the accused under Section 326 and 149 IPC — reduced the punishment to 2 years and maintained the fine as imposed by the High Court — appeal disposed of.

2009 SCCL.COM 2090(Case No: Criminal Appeal Nos. 1678-1679 of 2009 With Criminal Appeal No. 1680 of 2009) 

Babubhai Jamnadas Patel Appellant versus State of Gujarat and others Respondents

Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 9/2/2009.

Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph. 

Subject Index: Interference in Investigation proceedings — contention of appellant that the High Court in the name of investigation directed both the manner and mode in which the investigation was to be conducted or the direction in which the investigation was to proceed — whether the courts can monitor investigations in respect of offences under Section 420, 465, 466, 467, & 120-B of IPC, 1860 alleged to have been committed when the investigation had already been commenced by the investigation agency? — Yes — courts do not ordinarily interfere with the function of the investigation agencies but the High Court is vested with such powers — for keeping a watch over the investigation and to conduct the investigation according to certain guidelines in order to prevent a miscarriage of justice — no interference with the orders of the High Court — appeal dismissed.

2009 SCCL.COM 2085(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 6017 of 2009 And Civil Appeal No. 6018 of 2009) 

Shri Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil and others Appellants versus Shri Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale and others Respondents

Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 9/2/2009.

Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha. 

Subject Index: Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 — Section 257 — power of State Government and of certain Revenue and Survey officers to call for and examine records and proceedings of subordinate officers — whether power of revision under Section 257 can be exercised at anytime although no time has been prescribed for exercise of such power? — held that if a statute does not prescribe the time limit for exercise of revisional power, does not mean that such power can be exercised anytime — reasonable period within which power of revision may be exercised would be 3 years under Section 257 subject to exceptional circumstances — exercise of revisional power after a lapse of 17 years not a reasonable time — impugned orders quashed and set aside — appeal allowed.

2009 SCCL.COM 2084(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 5640 of 2004 With Civil Appeal No. 5639 of 2004) 

Bombay Anand Bhavan Restaurant Appellant M/s. Cow & Cane and another Appellants versus The Deputy Director, ESI Corporation and another Respondents

Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 9/2/2009.

Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju and Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu. 

Subject Index: Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 — appellant engaged in making and selling coffee, tea and other beverages, also sweets and savories — purchased a bottle cooler and a coffee roaster — employed more than 10 employees — Deputy Director of ESI Corporation directed the appellants to pay contributions as appellant's establishment covered under the ESI Act — whether the establishment of the appellants is covered under the provisions of ESI Act, 1948? — Yes — whether the use of LPG gas is use of power as defined under the Act? — Yes — manufacturing process involved in the establishment of the appellant with the aid of LPG gas which is a power as it is mechanically transmitted — establishment of appellants termed as factories — ESI Act apply to the establishments — appeal dismissed with no cost.

2009 SCCL.COM 2096(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 5914-5915of 2009) 

Transmarine Corporation and others Appellants versus Zensar Technologies Ltd. and others Respondents

Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 9/1/2009.

Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha. 

Subject Index: Suit for eviction — rejection of application for amendment of the written statement by the Courts below — respondents admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties — no necessity for the High Court to direct that the issue regarding the title of plaintiff in respect of the suit premises to be decided in accordance with law — not open for the tenant to deny the title of the landlords/appellants — impugned order of High Court set aside — appeal allowed with no costs.

2009 SCCL.COM 2091(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 4436 of 2004) 

New India Assurance Company Ltd. Appellant versus M/s. Zuari Industries Ltd. and others Respondents

Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 9/1/2009.

Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly. 

Subject Index: Insurance — fire policy — respondent/complainant took Insurance policies including fire policy from the appellant in respect of its factory — short circuiting in the switch board — stoppage of electric supply — damage to the boiler — Insurance Company repudiated the claim on ground that loss to the boiler and other equipments was not caused by the fire — whether there was a fire? — Yes — whether the flashover and fire was the proximate cause of the damage? — Yes — claim maintainable even if the fire is for a fraction of a second — repudiation of the policy on the ground of no 'sustained fire' not justified — had the fire not occurred, the damage also would not have occurred and there was no intervening agency which was the independent source of the damage — appeal dismissed with no costs.

2009 SCCL.COM 2087(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 6898 of 2004) 

Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda Appellant versus Anita Nandrajog Respondent

Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 9/1/2009.

Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly. 

Subject Index: Fifth Bipartite Settlement — clause 17(b) — Voluntary Cessation of Employment by the Employee — respondent-2 employed in the office of petitioner Bank as accounts clerk — remained absent from duty for more than 266 days on 2 occasions — bank condoned the acts of absence of leaving the country without permission — again respondent did not join her duties for more than 150 consecutive days without any sanction of leave — respondent was asked to report for duty within 30 days, failing which would be deemed as her voluntarily retirement from service — by means of communication, the Bank treated the contesting respondent as having voluntarily terminated her employment — under clause 17(b) of the Bipartite Settlement, if an employee is absent without leave for more than 150 days and has no more leave to his /her credit then the Bank can validly order voluntary cessation of employment — action of Bank in terminating service on ground of voluntary cessation of employment valid — set aside the order of Tribunal — appeal allowed with no costs.

2009 SCCL.COM 2086(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 7687 of 2004) 

General Manager, Telecom Appellant versus M. Krishnan and another Respondent

Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 9/1/2009.

Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly. 

Subject Index: Indian Telegraph Act — Section 7-B — Arbitration of Disputes — telephone connection of respondent disconnected on non-payment of telephone bill — District Consumer Forum directed the appellant to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- with interest @12% p.a. — remedy provided in Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act regarding disputes in respect of telephone bills, then the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred — Rule 413 of the Telegraph Rules provides that all services relating to telephone are subject to Telegraph Rules — set aside the impugned judgement of District Consumer Forum and High Court — appeal allowed with no costs.

2009 SCCL.COM 2082(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 987 of 2002) 

Dhanapal Appellant versus State by Public Prosecutor, Madras Respondent

Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 9/1/2009.

Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi. 

Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 302, 307 and 34 — murder, attempt to murder, common intention — High Court held A-1, A-2 & A-4 guilty for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and imposed sentence of life imprisonment and held A-3 guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and imposed sentence of 5 years — hence the appeal — cause of death was due to hemorrhage and shock due to injuries received — accused is presumed to be innocent until proved guilty — if 2 reasonable or possible views can be reached, one that leads to acquittal and the other to conviction, the High Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused — view taken by the trial Court is a possible or plausible view — impugned judgement of High Court set aside — acquittal of accused — appeal allowed.

2009 SCCL.COM 2078(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 670 of 2009) 

Sushil Kumar Appellant versus State of Punjab Respondent

Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 9/1/2009.

Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Verma. 

Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302 — punishment of murder — appellant held guilty under Section 302 for committing murder of his wife, son aged 6 years and daughter aged 4 years — capital punishment awarded to appellant — whether it is a fit case for confirming the death sentence on the appellant or to award him some other punishment? — 'plea of alibi' taken by appellant not found to be truthful — no reason to doubt the credibility of witnesses — nothing on record to show that appellant is a habitual offender — extreme poverty drove the appellant to commit the gruesome murder — held not a fit case for 'rarest of rare case' — death sentence awarded set aside and quashed — appellant held guilty of Commission of offence under Section 302, IPC and is awarded life imprisonment for the same.

2009 SCCL.COM 2092(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 5891 of 2009 With Civil Appeal Nos. 5892-93, 5897-98, 5894-5896 of 2009, Civil Appeal Nos. 5271, 5571 of 2007, Civil Appeal Nos. 1465, 1499, 1500, 1438, 1439, 1440, 1915, 2408, 2409, 2411, 2410 of 2008 Civil Appeal No. 5157 of 2007, Civil Appeal Nos. 3479, 2648, 4125, 6217-6218 of 2008, Civil Appeal Nos. 427, 430, 429, 364-365, 1257-1258, 3532 of 2009 and Civil Appeal No. 451 of 2006.) 

M/s Liberty India Appellant(s) versus Commissioner of Income Tax Respondent(s)

Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/31/2009.

Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam. 

Subject Index: Income Tax Act, 1961 — Sections 80 I, 80-IA & 80-IB — deduction in respect of profits and gains from industrial undertakings engaged in infrastructure development etc. and other than infrastructure development — appellant engaged in manufacturing of fabrics and textile items — claimed deduction under Section 80-IB on the increased profits of industrial undertaking on account of Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme (DEPB) and Duty Drawback Scheme — whether profit from DEPB and Duty Drawback Scheme could be said to be profit derived from the business of the Industrial Undertaking eligible for deduction under Section 80-IB? — No — incentives profits belong to the category of ancillary profits of such undertakings — appeal dismissed with no cost.

2009 SCCL.COM 2077(Case No: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 22444 of 2009) 

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Petitioner versus Parvathneni and another Respondents

Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/31/2009.

Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly. 

Subject Index: Insurance — no valid insurance coverage — cheque towards premium for renewal of the policy was issued by the claimants but was dishonoured — petitioner contended no liability to pay any compensation amount — direct to place the dispute before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for constituting a larger bench to decide (1) if an Insurance Company can prove that it does not have any liability to pay any amount in law to the claimants under the Motor Vehicles Act or any other enactment, can the Court yet compel it to pay the amount in question giving it liberty to later on recover the same from the owner of the vehicle — (2) can such a direction be given under Article 142 of the Constitution and what is the scope of Article 142? Does Article 142 permit the Court to create a liability where there is none?

2009 SCCL.COM 3007(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 5839-5844 of 2009) 

Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences, through Registrar Appellant(s) versus P. Amulya and others Etc. Respondent(s)

Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/28/2009.

Judge(s): Hon'ble Chief Justice and Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam. 

Subject Index: Interim order — 992 students failed in first year MBBS examination — 436 students out of 992 applied for re-verification/re-totalling and out of them 294 were declared passed — certain irregularities in the re-verification process, the University cancelled the result — interim order passed by the High Court and directed the University to permit the students to continue their studies — University declared the result of all students who appeared and failed in the first year MBBS examination, cleared/passed all the 3 subjects of first year MBBS and permitted to persue second year MBBS course — requested to High Court to dispose the pending main writ petition — appeal disposed of with no costs.

2009 SCCL.COM 2089(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 5856 of 2009) 

Rajesh Kumar Appellant versus State of Uttarakhand and others Respondents

Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/28/2009.

Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha. 

Subject Index: Application of recall — opportunity of being heard — appellant declared Deputy Manager in election for Committee of Management in a college — induction of forged members in voters list — election not approved — found serious management and monetary irregularities on the part of the present committee of Management of the college — appellant made representation before respondent-3 for redressal of his grievances — High Court allowed the application for recall filed by one interested party and dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant without giving an opportunity to appellant to file his reply to the application of recall — recalling order passed by the High Court set aside — directed to respondent-3 to consider the representation of the appellant after hearing the appellant and other interested party — appeal disposed of with no cost.

2009 SCCL.COM 2076(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 5836-5837 of 2009) 

Public Service Commission through Secretary, Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission etc. Appellants versus Arvind Singh Chauhan and others Etc. Respondents

Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/28/2009.

Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu. 

Subject Index: State Service Examination, 2001 — appellants issued 2 advertisements inviting applications from eligible and qualified persons for State Service Examination, 2001 — age limit prescribed as to be 30 years relaxable by 3 years and 30 years relaxable by 5 years — respondents though allowed to be appeared in preliminary exam but not permitted in the Viva-voce test/final examination on ground of over aged — whether the High Court failed to appreciate that no concession or consent was given on behalf of the petitioner? — whether the High Court justified in failing to appreciate the matter in light of clause 25 of the advertisement which makes it clear that if there is any error in the application submitted by the candidates, the Commission is fully entitled to cancel the selection at any stage without giving any prior intimation to such candidates? — held that the respondents have passed the preliminary examination does not mean that their application/candidature is valid — no record of any concession made on the part of the appellants — held the respondents as over aged on the specified cut-off dates which make their application liable for cancellation — impugned order set aside — appeal allowed.

2009 SCCL.COM 2075(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 5845 of 2009) 

Suchita Srivastava and another Appellants versus Chandigarh Administration Respondent

Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/28/2009.

Judge(s): Hon'ble Chief Justice, Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam and Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan. 

Subject Index: Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 — Section 3 — when pregnancies may be terminated by registered medical practitioners — a mentally retarded woman become pregnant as a result of an alleged rape — whether it was correct on the part of High Court to direct the termination of pregnancy without the consent of the woman? — if the said woman assumed to be mentally incapable of making an informed decision, what are the appropriate standards for a Court to exercise 'Parens Patriae' jurisdiction? — an ossification test revealed the physical age of the victim around 19-20 years — victim's condition is of 'mild mental retardation' — State must respect the personal autonomy of a mentally retarded woman with regard to decisions about terminating a pregnancy — victim had not given consent for the termination of pregnancy — victim physically capable of continuing with the pregnancy — held that cannot permit a dilution otherwise would amount to an arbitrary and unreasonable restriction on the reproductive rights of the victim — direct the best medical facilities be made available during period of pregnancy as well as for post natal care — National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Multiple Disabilities prepared to look after the interests of woman — appeal disposed off.

2009 SCCL.COM 2073(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 5855 of 2009) 

State of Tamil Nadu and others Appellants versus Amala Annai Higher Secondary School Respondent

Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/28/2009.

Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha. 

Subject Index: Sanction of one post of Junior Assistant — upgradation of respondent's school from middle school to high school — strength of students was less than 300 at the time of upgradation — the management of the school made representation to the State Government for sanction of one post of Junior Assistant — respondent filed writ petition for the same relief — held that it was not open to the school to file another writ petition for the same relief — the management of the school appointed Junior Assistant to a non-sanctioned post — the strength of the school ought to be 300 and above during 1990-91 while the students strength of the school was only 281 — creation and sanction of posts is the prerogative of the executive and the Courts cannot arrogate to themselves a purely executive power — appeal allowed with no costs.

2009 SCCL.COM 2072(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 5854 of 2009) 

Ashok K. Jha and others Appellants versus Garden Silk Mills and another Respondents

Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/28/2009.

Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha. 

Subject Index: Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 — Section 42(1) — notice of change — respondent/employer issued written order intimating the appellants/employees that their services been transferred from Crimping Department to Twisting Department — clarification made regarding no change in service conditions, same pay scale and benefits which they have been getting while working in the Crimping Department — whether transfer of appellants from Crimping Department to Twisting Department by the Respondent tantamounts to change in respect of matter specified in item nos. 1 & 2 of Schedule II necessitating notice under Section 42(1) of Act, 1946? — No — whether Letters Patent Appeal under clause 15 was maintainable? — Yes — no evidence to establish that there was difference in the work in both the Departments — appeal dismissed with no cost.

2009 SCCL.COM 2070(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 2432 of 2002) 

Y. Satyanarayan Reddy Appellant versus The Mandal Revenue Officer, A.P. Respondent

Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/28/2009.

Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.N. Agrawal, Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam.

Subject Index: Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 — Sections 2(d), 8(7) — "land grabber", procedure and power of special courts — respondent filed an application before Land Grabbing Tribunal stating that appellant had unauthorisedly encroached upon 1 Acre 21 Guntas of Government land meant for public purpose — prayer by respondent for the direction of eviction of appellant from Government land — continue in possession of land by appellant on payment of its market value as compensation would amount to breaking open an escape-hatch to denude the Act of its very object and purpose — appeal dismissed with no costs.

2009 SCCL.COM 2069(Case No: Crl. M.P. No. 3401 of 2009 In Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 112 of 2007) 

V. Ravi Chandran Petitioner/Appellant versus Union of India and others Respondents

Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/28/2009.

Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha. 

Subject Index: Habeas Corpus petition — for the production of minor child — petitioner and respondent no. 6 got married and a son was born out of the wedlock in USA — dissolution of marriage due to matrimonial discord — consent order passed by the Family Court, New York to have legal and physical custody of the minor child jointly by both the petitioner and respondent no. 6 — respondent no. 6 brought minor to India — petitioner alleged that the child been illegally and unlawfully detained in blatant violation of orders of US Courts — mother and the child could not be found anywhere — should CBI be requested to trace the minor child in the Habeas Corpus petition? — Yes — almost 2 years since the notice issued but child could not be produced — direct the registry of this Court to write a letter to the Director, CBI requesting him to trace minor and produce him before this Court with his report.

2009 SCCL.COM 2068(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 3433 of 2007 With Civil Appeal Nos. 3434, 3435, 3436 and 3437 of 2007) 

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and another Appellants versus Casteribe Rajya P. Karmchari Sanghatana Respondent

Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/28/2009.

Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha. 

Subject Index: Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 — Sections 21, 26, 28 and 30 — Unfair Labour Practice & procedure for dealing with complaints — affected employees engaged by the Corporation as casual labourers for cleaning of buses — required to work everyday atleast 8 hours — work done is of permanent in nature but only paltry amount paid to them — held the posts of cleaners exist in the Corporation — standing Order 503 prescribes the procedures for recruitment of Class IV employees of the Corporation and are not statutory in nature — direction of giving status, wages and all other benefits of permanency applicable to the post of cleaners — the affected employees in the complaints filed by the unrecognized union may not be entitled to the benefits of permanency to the post of cleaners as the complaints not maintainable — in exercise of plenary power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India direct the employees in these complaint would also get the status, wages and other benefits of permanency applicable to the post of cleaners — appeal dismissed with no costs.

2009 SCCL.COM 2062(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 1640 of 2009) 

Mahesh Chand Sharma Appellant versus State of U.P. and others Respondents

Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 8/28/2009.

Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Verma. 

Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B — cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, forgery for purpose of cheating and using it as genuine, Criminal Conspiracy — appellant purchased a land from vendor through the execution of sale deed — also took over the possession of land — all the accused in collusion with Area Lekhpal got their names mutated for the land purchased by appellant — thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC — held total non-application of law — absolutely wrong facts and incorrect principles of law have been applied — the learned Single Judge committed a gross error in resorting to Section 340 of CrPC — accused miserably failed for grant of any relief under Section 482 of CrPC — impugned order set aside and quashed — directed to proceed with the Criminal complaint filed by appellant against the accused — appeal allowed.