March 26, 2018

17 Important Supreme Court Cases Reported in (2018) 3 SCC Part 1

1. Naveen Kumar v. Vijay Kumar, (2018) 3 SCC 1

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - S. 2 (30) - Where the registered owner has purported to transfer the vehicle but continues to be reflected in the records of the registering authority as the owner of the vehicle, he would not stand absolved of liability.

2. MHADA v. Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. (P) Ltd., (2018) 3 SCC 13

Tenders - E-Auction - Lack of any timely response of the first respondent when the system had failed to generate an acknowledgement of the bid documents in a situation where the first respondent claims to have pressed the ‘freeze button’; the generation of acknowledgements in respect of other bidders and the absence of any glitch in the technology would strongly indicate that the bid submitted by the first respondent was not a valid bid and the directions issued by the High Court in favour of the first respondent virtually confers on the said respondent a second opportunity which cannot be countenanced.

3. Sube Singh v. Shyam Singh, (2018) 3 SCC 18

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Ss. 166 & 168 - Multiplier should depend on age of the deceased and not on age of the dependants.

4. Dataram Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 3 SCC 22

Bail - The grant or refusal of bail is entirely within the discretion of the judge hearing the matter and though that discretion is unfettered, it must be exercised judiciously and in a humane manner and compassionately. Also, conditions for the grant of bail ought not to be so strict as to be incapable of compliance, thereby making the grant of bail illusory.

5. Union of India v. Pushpavathi, (2018) 3 SCC 28

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Ss. 28, 34, 28-A & 18 - the dispute in relation to non-award of interest can be raised by an aggrieved person only by taking recourse to Article 226 of the Constitution in writ petition - Reference under Section 18 or Section 28A(3) cannot be considered to be an alternative statutory remedy available to the landowner for getting the question of non-award of interest payable under Sections 28 or/and 34 of the Act decided by the Civil Court.

6. Bengal Chemists & Druggists Assn. v. Kalyan Chowdhury, (2018) 3 SCC 41

Companies Act, 2013 - Ss. 421(3) & 433 - Appeal from orders of Tribunal - Limitation - Appeal has been filed 9 days after the period of limitation of 45 days has expired and a further period of another 45 days has also expired - it is not possible for Section 5 of the Limitation Act to apply given the peremptory language of Section 421(3) - beyond the second period of 45 days, there can be no further condonation of delay.

7. Bikash Manna v. State of W.B., (2018) 3 SCC 47

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - S. 438 - Anticipatory Bail - De-facto complainant has no objection if protection under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. is granted to the accused, in case he is permitted to withdraw the amount deposited before the Court - He is only interested in getting his money and does not want to prosecute the accused - Appeal disposed.

8. Shaikh Osmanali Chous v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2018) 3 SCC 49

Employees Compensation Act, 1923 - S. 30 - Appellant was a driver - lost two toes of his left leg and that there were also burn injuries - Commissioner awarded compensation of Rs.2,79,367/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the expiry of one month from the date of the accident till realization - challenged the award before the High Court - The High Court as per the impugned order reduced the compensation to a meager sum of Rs. 83,664 - Unfortunately, the High Court has not referred to any of the discussions while reducing the compensation to 1/3rd of what has been awarded by the Commissioner - An appeal before the High Court against an award of the Commissioner is only on a substantial question of law - there wasn't any substantial question of law raised by the Insurance Company either - the impugned order is to be set aside and that of the Commissioner is to be restored - Appeal is allowed.

9. Shahid Jamal v. State of U.P., (2018) 3 SCC 52

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Ss. 11, 12 & 18 (2) - Reference - Proper Application - appellants had accepted the compensation under protest on the point of sufficiency of the compensation and made a specific request for reference under S. 18 on 24-7-1999, which indisputably was within the six month period of limitation - this is a case where the request under Section 18 of the Act made on 24-7-1999 should be treated as a proper application.

10. Ashish Kumar v. State of U.P., (2018) 3 SCC 55

Service Law - Recruitment Process - Eligibility Criteria - Post of Psychologist - Any part of the advertisement which is contrary to the statutory rules has to give way to the statutory prescription. Thus, looking to the qualification prescribed in the statutory rules, appellant fulfills the qualification and after being selected for the post denying appointment to him is arbitrary and illegal. It is well settled that when there is variance in the advertisement and in the statutory rules, it is statutory rules which take precedence.

11. Latesh v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 3 SCC 66

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - S. 154 - First Information Report (FIR) - The value to be attached to the FIR depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. When a person gives a statement to the police officer, basing on which the FIR is registered. The capacity of reproducing the things differs from person to person. Some people may have the ability to reproduce the things as it is, some may lack the ability to do so. Some times in the state of shock, they may miss the important details, because people tend to react differently when they come across a violent act. Merely because the names of the accused are not stated and their names are not specified in the FIR that may not be a ground to doubt the contents of the FIR and the case of the prosecution cannot be thrown out on this count.

12. State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C., (2018) 3 SCC 85

Constitution of India - Article 226 - Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Section 13(4) - Discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 is not absolute but has to be exercised judiciously in the given facts of a case and in accordance with law. The normal rule is that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution ought not to be entertained if alternate statutory remedies are available, except in cases falling within the well defined exceptions. 

13. National Travel Services v. CIT, (2018) 3 SCC 95

Income Tax Act, 1961 - S. 2(22)(e) - Interpretation of - Whether Section 2(22)(e) of the Act gets attracted inasmuch as a loan has been made to a shareholder, who after the amendment, is a person who is the beneficial owner of shares holding not less than 10% of the voting power in the Company, and whether the loan is made to any concern in which such shareholder is a partner and in which he has a substantial interest, which is defined as being an interest of 20% or more of the share of the profits of the firm.

14. Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2018) 3 SCC 104, (2018) 3 SCC 114

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Ss. 482, 157 & 154 - Inherent powers of High Court - Once the Court finds that the FIR does disclose prima facie commission of any cognizable offence, it should stay its hand and allow the investigating machinery to step in to initiate the probe to unearth the crime in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Code. 

15. Theiry Santhanamal v. Viswanathan, (2018) 3 SCC 117

Partition Deed can be entered into between the parties who are joint owners of the property. In case the father wanted to give property to his sons, of which he was absolute owner, it could be done by will or by means of gift deed/donation etc. The High Court was, therefore, right in observing that such a partition deed has to be construed either a gift deed or family settlement.

16. Nagar Mal v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2018) 3 SCC 130

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Ss. 166 & 168 - Computation of Income - Student - deceased was a bachelor, aged 20 years - Tribunal refused to accept certificates of monthly earning of Rs 15,000 - Tribunal adopted an income of Rs.6,000/- per month and since the deceased was a bachelor, it deducted a sum of Rs 3,000/- per month towards personal expenses - Held, the Tribunal has given cogent reasons for declining to accept the income certificates which were relied upon by the father of the deceased. No witnesses were examined on behalf of the companies which were alleged to have issued the certificates to prove the certificates. Evidently there was a failure to establish that the deceased, who was a student pursuing his C.A. was in receipt of a monthly income of Rs 15,000/-. Hence, the assessment of income by the Tribunal cannot be faulted.

17. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. v.  Datar Switchgear Ltd., (2018) 3 SCC 133

Contract Law - Termination of Contract - Once it is established that the party was justified in terminating the contract on account of fundamental breach thereof, then the said innocent party is entitled to claim damages for the entire contract, i.e. for the part which is performed and also for the part of the contract which it was prevented from performing.
Previous Post
Next Post