Kerala High Court

[Kerala%20High%20Court][bleft]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

[Madhya%20Pradesh%20High%20Court][bsummary]

Delhi High Court

[Delhi%20High%20Court][twocolumns]

126 Important Supreme Court of India Judgments / Orders April 2018

1. Chennai Port Trust Vs. Chennai Port Trust Industrial Employees Canteen Workers Welfare Association

If on the undisputed facts, this Court has granted benefit to the canteen workers in the case of Indian Petrochemicals then there is no reason that on the same set of undisputed facts arising in this case, the Court should not grant the benefit to the employees/workers in this case. It is more so when no distinguishable facts are pointed out in this case qua Indian Petrochemicals’s case. We are, therefore, in agreement with the approach, reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the two Courts below.

Case Number : C. A. No. 1381 / 2010 27-04-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : Rajesh Singh Chauhan
Respondent's Advocate : Shiv Prakash Pandey
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. K. Agrawal, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre

2. Arif Khan @ Agha Khan Vs. State of Uttarakhand

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - S. 50 - It is mandatory for the prosecution to prove that the search and recovery was made from the appellant in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer.

Judgment Link : http://bit.ly/2Fqap0K
Case Number : Crl. A. No. 273 / 2007 27-04-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : Rameshwar Prasad Goyal
Respondent's Advocate : Jatinder Kumar Bhatia
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. K. Agrawal, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre

3. A. Dharmalingam (dead) by Lrs.  Vs. V. Lalithambal 

Partition - between two brothers - effected sometime in 1923 - appellant is entitled to 7/24 share in the suit property and a preliminary decree in that behalf stands passed in favour of the appellant - Since the matter has been pending in the courts below since 1985, the execution proceedings be expedited.

Case Number : C. A. No. 5534-5535 / 2007 27-04-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : Balaji Srinivasan
Respondent's Advocate : R. Chandrachud
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra

4. Osama Aziz Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

Penal Code, 1860 - S. 307 - Even if there is evidence to indicate commission of offence under Section 307, such a charge has not been framed against the concerned accused - that question open to be considered by the Trial Court on its own merits and in accordance with law.

Case Number : Crl. A. No. 648 / 2018 27-04-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : Petitioner-in-person
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. M. Khanwilkar

5. Mohar Sai Vs. Gayatri Devi

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - S. 166 - In motor accident claim cases, the Court cannot adopt a hyper­technical approach but has to discharge the role of parens patriae.

Judgment Link : http://bit.ly/2r8lOxP
Case Number : C. A. No. 8411 / 2015 27-04-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : Sumita Hazarika
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. M. Khanwilkar

6. Nishan Singh Vs. Oriental Insurance Company

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - S. 140 - Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989 - Regulation 23 - Distance from vehicles in front - The expression ‘sufficient distance’ has not been defined in the Regulations or elsewhere - The thumb rule of sufficient distance is at least a safe distance of two to three seconds gap in ideal conditions to avert collision and to allow the following driver time to respond.

Judgment Link : http://bit.ly/2r6HSc3
Case Number : C. A. No. 10145 / 2016 27-04-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : Nidhi
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. M. Khanwilkar

7. Prof. Chintamani Malviya Vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh

Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 199 & 200 - Mere fact that a person has made a contradictory statement in a judicial proceeding is not by itself always sufficient to justify a prosecution. 

Case Number : Crl. A. No. 649 / 2018 27-04-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : R. C. Kohli
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit
Judgment By Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra

8. Gurbakhsh Singh Vs. Buta Singh

The main purpose of allowing the amendment is to minimise the litigation and the plea that the relief sought by way of amendment was barred by time is to be considered in the light of the facts and circumstances of each case.

Case Number : C.A. No. 4568 / 2018 27-04-2018 
Petitioner's Advocate : B. S. Banthia 
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit 
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra 

9. Commissioner of Income Tax Karnal Vs. M/s Carpet India Panipat (Haryana) 

Interpretation of the provisions contained in Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961

Case Number : C.A. No. 4590 / 2018 27-04-2018 
Petitioner's Advocate : Anil Katiyar 
Respondent's Advocate : T. Mahipal
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal

10. Bhaskarrao v. State of Maharashtra [Supreme Court of India]

Under the Influence of Bias, a Man may not be in a Position to Judge Correctly, even if they Earnestly desire to do so.

11. Champa Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan

Constitution of India - Article 243Q - Constitution of Municipalities - Interpretation of.

Case Number C.A. No. 4554 / 2018 26-04-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : Aishwarya Bhati
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar

12. Naveen Kaushik Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

The appeals and the special leave petition are allowed to be withdrawn without prejudice to any contention to be raised before the trial court in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the trial court for further proceedings on 21st May, 2018 or as per the scheduled date.

Case Number : Crl.A. No. 1393 / 2013 26-04-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : Md. Shahid Anwar
Respondent's Advocate : Mukesh Kumar Maroria
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel

13. Vinod Kumar Dhall Vs. Dharampal Dhall

Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 - Ss. 2 (a), 4(3) - Prohibition of the right to recover property held benami - Where a person in whose name a property is held as coparcener in a Hindu Undivided Family and the property is held for the benefits of the coparcener in the property, provisions of Section 4 containing prohibition of the right to recover the property held benami would not be applicable.

Case Number : C.A. No. 4534-4535 / 2018 26-04-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : Ajai Kumar Bhatia 
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra

14. Naresh Vs. State of Uttarakhand

Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 307/34, 323/34, 324/34 & 504 - Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court and convicting the accused.

Case Number : Crl.A. No. 394-395 / 2018 25-04-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : Sonal Jain
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.k. Agrawal, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre

15. Shiv Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - S. 15(2) - Non-compliance of - It is mandatory on the part of the Collector to comply with the procedure prescribed under Section 15(2) of the Act so as to make the acquisition proceedings legal and in conformity with the provisions of the Act.

Case Number : C.A. No. 4414 / 2018 25-04-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : Bhagabati Prasad Padhy
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.k. Agrawal, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre

16. Y.P. Sudhanva Reddy Vs. Chairman and Managing Director Karnataka Milk Fedaration

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - O. 41 R. 27 r/w. 151 - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - S. 4.

Case Number : C.A. No. 4412-4413 / 2018 25-04-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : Anil Kumar Mishra-I
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.k. Agrawal, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre

17. Vishwasrao Stwarao Naik Vs. State of Maharashtra

Revenue Record - Presumption of truth is attached to the revenue record. No doubt, this is a rebuttable presumption, but it is for the party who alleges that the entries in the revenue record are wrong to lead evidences to rebut this presumption.

Case Number : C.A. No. 2038-2039 / 2009 25-04-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : C. G. Solshe
Respondent's Advocate : Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta

18. Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency P. Ltd. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

Lower Court Records - Wherever original record has been summoned by an appellate / revisional court, photocopy / scanned copy of the same may be kept for its reference and original returned to the trial courts forthwith - if in future the trial court record is summoned, the trial courts may send photocopy / scanned copy of the record and retain the original so that the proceedings are not held up - In cases where specifically original record is required by holding that photocopy will not serve the purpose, the appellate / revisional court may call for the record only for perusal and the same be returned while keeping a photocopy / scanned copy of the same.

Case Number : Crl.A. No. 1375-1376 / 2013 25-04-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : Tatini Basu
Respondent's Advocate : Mukesh Kumar Maroria
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel

19. Cheran Propertiees Limited Vs. Kasturi and Sons Limited

Companies Act, 2013 - S. 423 - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Ss. 7, 35 - Arbitration Agreement - National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) - National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) - Appeal - the arbitral award, in essence, postulates the transmission of shares from the appellant to the claimant - only remedy available for effectuating the transmission is that which was provided in Section 111 for seeking a rectification of the register.

Case Number : C.A. No. 10025-10026 / 2017 24-04-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : Abhinav Shrivastava
Bench : Hon'ble The Chief Justice, Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud

Judgment By : Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud

20. Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association Vs. Union of India

Medical Council of India Post-Graduate Medical Education Regulations 2000, as amended on 15 February 2012 - Regulations 9(IV) and 9(VII) - The grant of any interim relief at the present stage would amount to a mandatory final order which cannot be countenanced. MCI has, as an expert body, proceeded on a principled basis. Any attempt at this stage to read into Regulation 9(IV), a separate source of entry or a reservation for in-service candidates in degree courses would impinge upon Entry 66 of List I and the exercise of regulatory powers under the central statute.

Case Number : W. P. (C) No. 196 / 2018 24-04-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : Khaitan & Co. 
Judgment By : Hon'ble Dr. Justice D. Y. Chandrachud

21. Commissionr of Income Tax IV Ahmedabad Vs. Shree Rama Multi Tech. Ltd.

Whether interest accrued on account of deposit of share application money is taxable income ? Held, interest income earned out of the share application money is liable to be set off against the public issue expenses.

Case Number : C. A. No. 6391-6391 / 2013 24-04-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : Anil Katiyar
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. K. Agrawal, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. K. Agrawal

22. Tapan Kumar Dutta Vs. Commnr. of Income Tax, West Bengal

Whether the issue of Second (Fresh) Notice under Section 158BD of the IT Act is valid or not? Held, The very object of the Section 158BD is to give jurisdiction to the Assessing Officer to proceed against any person other than the person against whom a search warrant is issued. Although Section 158BD does not speak of ‘recording of reasons’ as postulated in Section 148, but since proceedings under Section 158BD may have monetary implications, such satisfaction must reveal mental and dispassionate thought process of the Assessing Officer in arriving at a conclusion and must contain reasons which should be the basis of initiating the proceedings under Section 158BD.

Case Number : C. A. No. 2014-2014 / 2007 24-04-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : K.V. Mohan
Respondent's Advocate : B.V. Balaram Das
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. K. Agrawal, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. K. Agrawal

23. Income Tax Officer Ward No. 16(2) Vs. M/s Techspan India Private Ltd.

Income Tax Act, 1961 - Ss. 147 & 148 - Income escaping assessment - Issue of notice where income has escaped assessment - Section 147 of the IT Act does not allow the re-assessment of an income merely because of the fact that the assessing officer has a change of opinion with regard to the interpretation of law differently on the facts that were well within his knowledge even at the time of assessment. Doing so would have the effect of giving the assessing officer the power of review and Section 147 confers the power to re-assess and not the power to review.

Case Number : C. A. No. 2732 / 2007 24-04-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : Anil Katiyar
Respondent's Advocate : Bhargava V. Desai
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. K. Agrawal, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. K. Agrawal

24. B. L. Passi Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (XI)

Income Tax Act, 1961 - S. 80 O - Deduction in respect of royalities etc. from certain foreign enterprises - the services of managing agent rendered to a foreign company, are not technical services within the meaning of Section 80-O of the IT Act.

Case Number : C. A. No. 3892 / 2007 24-04-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : Bina Gupta
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. K. Agrawal, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. K. Agrawal

25. Delhi Administration Vs. Vidya Gupta

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Ss. 7, 13 (2) - Prohibitions of manufacture, sale, etc., of certain articles of food - Report of public analyst - Sample of Ghee that was taken was from the Ghee that was stored for the purpose of making jalebis - Variation between the reports of Public Analyst and the Director, Central Food Laboratory.

Case Number : Crl. A. No. 625 / 2018 24-04-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : B.V. Balaram Das
Respondent's Advocate : M.C. Dhingra
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. A. Bobde, Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. A. Bobde

26. Ram Pal Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961 - Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats (Oath of Office of Adhyaksha or Pramukh Etc.) Rules, 1994.

Case Number : SLP (c) No. 31990 / 2017 24-04-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : Ashok Kumar Singh
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur

27. Union of India Vs. Pirthwi Singh

When will the Rip Van Winkleism stop and Union of India wake up to its duties and responsibilities to the justice delivery system?

Case Number : C.A. No. 4415-4416 / 2018 24-04-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : Mukesh Kumar Maroria
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur

28. Add. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bharat V. Patel

Income Tax Act, 1961 - S. 143(3) - taxing provisions shall be construed strictly so that no person who is otherwise not liable to pay tax, be made liable to pay tax.

Case Number : C.A. No. 4380-4380 / 2018 24-04-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : Anil Katiyar
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.k. Agrawal, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.k. Agrawal

29. Commissioner of Income Tax VI Vs. Virtual Soft Systems Ltd.

Whether the deduction on account of lease equalization charges from lease rental income can be allowed under the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the basis of Guidance Note issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) ? 

Case Number : C.A. No. 4358 / 2018 24-04-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : Anil Katiyar
Respondent's Advocate : Santosh Kumar - I
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.k. Agrawal, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.k. Agrawal

30. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai Vs. T. Jayachandran

An agreement need not be in writing but can be oral also and the same can be inferred from the conduct of the parties.

Judgment Link : http://bit.ly/2JHKRhY
Case Number : C.A. No. 4341 / 2018 24-04-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : Anil Katiyar
Respondent's Advocate : Sumit Kumar
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal

31. Kavita Chandrakant Lakhani Vs. State of Maharashtra

Penal Code, 1860 - S. 366 - Applicability of - Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage, etc. - Unless the prosecution proves that the abduction is for the purposes mentioned in Section 366 IPC, the Court cannot hold the accused guilty and punish him under Section 366 IPC.

Case Number : Crl.A. No. 459 / 2016 24-04-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : Vikas Mehta
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal

32. State of West Bengal Vs. West Bengal Dairymens Association

Fixation of Pay - Merger of the two directorates - Career Advancement Scheme, 1990 (CAS) - Modified Career Advancement Scheme, 2001 (MCAS). 

Case Number : C.A. No. 6221 / 2013 24-04-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : PLR Chambers And Co.
Respondent's Advocate : Shekhar Kumar
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph

33.  Commissioner Vs. Mahindra & Mahindra

Income Tax Act, 1961 - S. 28 - Whether the sum of Rs. 57,74,064/- due by the Respondent to Kaiser Jeep Corporation which later on waived off by the lender constitute taxable income of the Respondent or not?

Case Number : C.A. No. 6949-6950 / 2004 24-04-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : Anil Katiyar
Respondent's Advocate : Khaitan & Co.
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal

34. C.I.T., Central-III, New Delhi Vs. HCL Technologies Ltd.

Income Tax Act, 1961 - S. 143 - Whether the software development charges are to be excluded while working out the deduction admissible under Section 10A of the IT Act on the ground that such charges are relatable towards expenses incurred on providing technical services outside India?

Case Number : C.A. No. 8489-8490 / 2013 24-04-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : Anil Katiyar
Respondent's Advocate : Kavita Jha
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal, Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal

35. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-I Vs. Container Corporation of India

Income Tax Act,1961 - S. 80-IA - Whether the Inland Container Depots (ICDs) under the control of the Respondent, during the relevant period, qualified for deduction under Section 80-IA(4) of the IT Act or not.

Case Number : C.A. No. 8900 / 2012 24-04-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : Anil Katiyar
Respondent's Advocate : Rani Chhabra
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal

36. Commissioner of Income Tax Kolkata XII Vs. Calcutta Export Company

Income Tax Act, 1961 - S. 143(3) - Whether the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2010 in Section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act is retrospective in nature ?

Case Number : C.A. No. 4339-4340 / 2018 24-04-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : Anil Katiyar
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.k. Agrawal

37. Registrar, Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology Vs. Upendra Nath Patra

A post of Field Supervisor can be treated as a Teacher only after a declaration by the University with the prior approval of the Board and not otherwise.

Case Number : C.A. No. 4275-4277 / 2018 23-04-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : Shibashish Misra
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.a. Bobde, Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao

38. Dr. Shadab Ahmed Khan Vs. Prof. Mujahid Beg

Ph.D. is not required for promotion to the post of Professor in a medical college.

Case Number : C.A. No. 4278 / 2018 23-04-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : Equity Lex Associates
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.A. Bobde, Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao

39. Gauhati High Court Vs. Goto Ete

Arunachal Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 2006 - Rule 7 - Method of recruitment, qualification, reservation and age limit.

Case Number : C.A. No. 4298 / 2018 23-04-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : Sneha Kalita
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan
Judgment By Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri

40. Harvinder Singh Vs. State of Haryana

Land Acquisition - All the connected matters have been remitted to the High Court - matters are still pending before the High Court - Therefore remits this matter also to the High Court.

Case Number : C.A. No. 4282-4283 / 2018 23-04-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : Sudhir Naagar
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph

41. Gaurav Aseem Avtej Vs. U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd.

Uttar Pradesh Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1971 - The words ‘held’ or ‘occupied’ carry the same meaning and there is no manner of doubt that if the land is in the lawful possession of the factory and was being used for the purposes of the factory, the said land vested in the Government as per Section 3 of the 1971 Act.

Case Number : C.A. No. 6919-6920 / 2009 20-04-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : Garima Prashad
Respondent's Advocate : Pradeep Misra
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.a. Bobde, Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao

42. Dr. M. Dakshayani Vs. State of Karnataka

Promotion as Assistant Professor - three years experience as a Lecturer is sufficient - It need not be after completion of Post-Graduation.

Case Number : C.A. No. 4236 / 2018 20-04-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : Shailesh Madiyal
Respondent's Advocate : P. R. Ramasesh
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.a. Bobde, Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao

43. Canara Bank Vs. N.G. Subbaraya Setty

Trade Marks Act, 1999 - S. 45 - Banking Regulation Act, 1949 - Ss. 6, 8 & 46 (4) - Registration of assignments and transmissions - Forms of business in which banking companies may engage - Prohibition of trading - Penalties - a bank cannot use the trademark “Eenadu” to sell agarbathies.

Case Number : C.A. No. 4233 / 2018 20-04-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : Rajesh Kumar-I
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman

44. Amina Bi Kaskar (d) Thr. Lr. Vs. Union of India

Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (SAFEMA) - S. 7 - the Tribunal did not have power to condone the delay beyond 60 days.

Case Number : C.A. No. 4252 / 2018 20-04-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : Aftab Ali Khan
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre

45. Apollo Zipper India Limited Vs. W. Newman And Co. Ltd.

In an eviction suit filed by the landlord against the tenant under the Rent Laws, when the issue of title over the tenanted premises is raised, the landlord is not expected to prove his title like what he is required to prove in a title suit.

Case Number : C.A. No. 4249 / 2018 20-04-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : Tamali Wad
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.k. Agrawal, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre

46. Anitta Job Vs. State of Kerala

In the facts of the present case where admission was also notified by the University on 30.09.2016 and the Admission Supervisory Committee (ASC) for the first time disapproved their admissions only on 03.06.2016 and further the appellants were also permitted to appear in the examination of MBBS First Year by the High Court, at this distance of time, we are not inclined to throw the appellants out of the College on account of the above shortcomings as pointed by the ASC and the High Court. In the result, we set aside the order of the High Court as well as the order of the Admission Supervisory Committee. The appeal is allowed.

Case Number : C.A. No. 3874 / 2018 20-04-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : Zulfiker Ali P. S
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri

47. M/s Tomorrowland Technologies Exports Ltd.  Vs. Housing And Urban Development Corporation Ltd.

Delay condoned.

Case Number : SLP (C) No. 10752-10753 / 2018 20-04-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : Gaurav Dhingra
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.A. Bobde

48. Devender Singh Vs. State of Haryana

Land Acquisition Act - Section 4 - Enhancement of Compensation.

Case Number : C.A. No. 4238 / 2018 20-04-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : Gagan Gupta
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph

49. Nandakumar Vs. State of Kerala

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Ss. 5, 12 - Conditions for a Hindu marriage - Voidable Marriages - ‘live-in relationship’ is now recognized by the Legislature itself which has found its place under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Case Number : Crl.A. No. 597 / 2018 20-04-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : A. Raghunath
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.k. Sikri, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.k. Sikri

50. Tehseen Poonawalla Vs. Union of India

There is no reason for the court to doubt the clear and consistent statements of the four judicial officers. The documentary material on the record indicates that the death of Judge Loya was due to natural causes. There is no ground for the court to hold that there was a reasonable suspicion about the cause or circumstances of death which would merit a further inquiry.

Case Number : W.P. (C) No. 19 / 2018 19-04-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : Varinder Kumar Sharma
Bench : Hon'ble The Chief Justice, Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.m. Khanwilkar, Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.y. Chandrachud
Judgment By : Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.y. Chandrachud

51. Subhash Chandra Sen (d) Thr. Lrs. Vs. Nabin Sain (d) thr. Lrs.

It is not possible to give effect to the partition decree without a sketch map of the suit schedule property.

Case Number : C.A. No. 3120 / 2009 19-04-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : Bijan Kumar Ghosh
Respondent's Advocate : Sarla Chandra
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana, Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.v. Ramana

52. Mahaveer Kumar Jain Vs. Commnr. of Income Tax

Income Tax Act, 1961 - S. 256 (1) - Whether income from lottery earned is taxable under the IT Act especially when such income was already taxed under the provisions of Sikkim State Income Tax Rules, 1948. If so, whether the deduction that is to be allowed on such income under Sec 80 TT of the IT Act is on ‘gross income’ or on the ‘net income’.

Case Number : C.A. No. 4166 / 2006 19-04-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : Tarun Gupta
Respondent's Advocate : A. N. Arora
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.k. Agrawal, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.k. Agrawal

53. M/s Standard Essential Oil Industries Vs. Forest Range Officer Kasargod

Forest Act, 1961 (Kerala) - Ss. 2(f), 61A & 69 - Confiscation by Forest Officers in certain cases - Presumption that timber or forest produce belongs to Government - Whether confiscation of sandalwood oil can be ordered ? Held, Sandalwood oil is a forest produce but S. 61A of the Act is limited only to the categories specified therein and does not give power of confiscation of sandalwood oil - S. 69 operates only as a tool to help the government in proving its title to the property but the said Section cannot be read as to give any power of confiscation of the property.

Forest (Amendment) Act, 2010 (Kerala) - S. 47H - Seizure of sandalwood, sandalwood oil etc. and confiscation thereon - The present case being related to the situation prior to the time of amendment in 2010 was made, the amended provisions do not apply. Hence, the order of confiscation of sandalwood oil is liable to be set aside.

Case Number : C.A. No. 1747 / 2008 19-04-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : A. Raghunath
Respondent's Advocate : G. Prakash
Bench Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre
Judgment By Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal

54. Mangamal @ Thulasi Vs. T.B. Raju

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989 - S. 29A - Equal rights to daughter in coparcenary property - Only living daughters of living coparceners would be entitled to claim a share in the ancestral property.

Judgment Link : http://bit.ly/2HYru77
Case Number : C.A. No. 1933 / 2009 19-04-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : Revathy Raghavan
Respondent's Advocate : Mohit Paul
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal

55. Union of India Vs. Varindera Constructions Ltd. Through Its Director

Court shall not intervene with the subject matter of arbitration unless injustice is caused to either of the parties.

Judgment Link : http://bit.ly/2jeRPjl
Case Number : C.A. No. 3994-3995 / 2018 19-04-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : Shreekant N. Terdal
Respondent's Advocate : Umesh Kumar Khaitan
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal

56. Suresh Kumar Kohli Vs. Rakesh Jain

Whether the status of the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased tenant will be of joint tenants or of tenants-in-common.

Judgment Link : http://bit.ly/2HEVa62
Case Number : C.A. No. 3996 / 2018 19-04-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : Rajiv Raheja
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.k. Agrawal

57. Paradeep Phosphates Limited Vs. State of Orissa

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Ss. 9A, 12 r/w. 10 - Reference - Notice of change - At the very moment when the order of enhancement of superannuation of the employees came into force though temporary in nature, it would amount to privilege to employees since it is a special right granted to them. Hence, any unilateral withdrawal of such privilege amounts to contravention of Section 9A of the Act and such act of the employer is bad in the eyes of law.

Case Number : C.A. No. 3997-3998 / 2018 19-04-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : Khaitan & Co.
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.k. Agrawal, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.k. Agrawal

58. M/s Essel Infra Projects Ltd. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (M.P. Act, 1983) - Having regard to the object of the legislation which is to provide speedy dispute resolution mechanism, the State must monitor timeliness so that arbitration proceedings do not take unduly long time.

Case Number : C.A. No. 4250 / 2018 19-04-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : Sridhar Potaraju
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel

59. R. Srinivasan Vs. V. Chandrasekaran

Since the parties have already settled their disputes by way of the Settlement Agreement dated 19.04.2018, the Appeal is disposed of in terms thereof.

Case Number : C.A. No. 3993 / 2018 19-04-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : Vijay Kumar
Respondent's Advocate : Shobha Ramamoorthy
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph

60. Federation of Hotel and Restaurant Associations of India Secretary General Vs. Union of India Ministry of Finance Secretary

Appellant seeks permission to withdraw the Civil Appeals. Permission granted. The Civil Appeals are dismissed as withdrawn.

Case Number : C.A. No. 4932-4934 / 2001 19-04-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : Bina Gupta
Respondent's Advocate : Anil Katiyar
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph

61. Jyoti Kumar Malviya Vs. Indian Farmers Fer. Co-op. Ltd.

Appellant to appear before the Director (HR) of the Respondent No.1-Society and submit his claim, who will verify and process the same in accordance with law and release the permissible benefits, if any, to the appellant within a period of two months from today.

Case Number : C.A. No. 3062 / 2006 19-04-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : Bimal Roy Jad
Respondent's Advocate : Abhay Kumar
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph

62. M. Durga Singh Vs. Yadagiri

The tenacity and stamina with which the appellants have been litigating for decades must be admired, but nothing else - record of the appeal shows that a couple of other proceedings were also instituted by the appellants confirming their status as chronic litigants - SC dismisses the appeal with costs of Rs. 50,000/- on the appellants for taking several courts for a ride through continuous and fruitless litigation spanning several decades.

Case Number : C. A. No. 5645 / 2006 18-04-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : V. N. Raghupathy
Respondent's Advocate : Sudha Gupta
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur

63. Sureshchandra Bagmal Doshi Vs. New India Assurance

Whether the Tribunal was right in increasing the amount for future rise in income by 100 per cent, or the High Court was within its right to reduce the said amount to 50 per cent.

Case Number : C. A. No. 5206 / 2016 18-04-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : Hemal Kiritkumar Sheth
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul

64. Sisters of St. Joseph of Cluny Vs. State of West Bengal

National Commission for Minority Education Institutions Act, 2004 - Ss. 10 (1) & 11 (f) - Right of a Minority Educational Institution to seek affiliation to a Scheduled University - Right to establish a Minority Educational Institution - Functions of Commission - Powers of Commission - Appeal against orders of the Competent authority - Power of Commission to decide on the minority status of an educational institution - Power to cancel - Bar of jurisdiction - Act to have overriding effect.

Case Number : C. A. No. 3945 / 2018 18-04-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : Romy Chacko
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman

65. Union of India Vs. Cdr. Ravindra V. Desai

Evidence Act, 1872 - S. 65B - Penal Code, 1860 - S. 509 - Navy Act, 1957 - Ss. 77 (2), 58, 74 & 48(c) - Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 - Ss. 17, 30 & 31 - Powers of the Tribunal on appeal under section 15 - Appeal to Supreme Court - Leave to Appeal - Call Data Record (CDR) - once the charges are proved in the court martial conducted by the authorities and the AFT also has given its imprimatur to the same by putting its stamp of approval, that too, after recording the evidence, with detailed analyses thereof, it is not the function of this Court to revisit the entire evidence to find out as to whether the finding of the authorities below are correct or not - Appeal to this Court has to be on a point of law on general public importance.

Case Number : Crl. A. No. 579 / 2016 18-04-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : Mukesh Kumar Maroria
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. K. Sikri, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. K. Sikri

66. Seema Singh Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 498A, 302 & 120B - Cancellation of Bail - Threat - Insofar as allegations of threat are concerned, the police examined the same and found to be false. In any case, the High Court has given liberty to the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail in case any such threat is extended or there is any violation on the part of respondent No. 2 to any of the conditions of the bail. The High Court has imposed strict conditions of bail keeping in view the interest of the prosecution as well.

Case Number : Crl. A. No. 569 / 2018 18-04-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : Pranav Sachdeva
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. K. Sikri, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. K. Sikri

67. Ajay Kumar Ojha Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

M.P. Arbitration Tribunal constituted under the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983, (M.P. Act) has the exclusive jurisdiction to deal with the dispute in question.

Case Number : SLP (c) No. 16686 / 2010 18-04-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : Neeraj Shekhar
Respondent's Advocate : B. S. Banthia
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel

68. Thahira P. Vs. Administrator, UT of Lakshdweep

Administration was fully justified in not considering objection or rejecting it as being beyond the prescribed time. Adherence to such time limits, if not strictly followed, can again lead to uncertainties particularly if other candidates also start raising objections after the cut off date and providing some justification for the delay. In such circumstances, the process of selection would get bogged down and unduly prolonged which would neither serve the interest of the concerned institution nor the management of affairs of the institution.

Case Number : SLP (C) No. 33281 / 2016
Petitioner's Advocate : C. K. Sasi
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur

69. Lt. Cdr. M. Ramesh Vs. Union of India Ministry of Defence

The decision of the Government to scrap the process of recruitment to the Indian Police Service (IPS) through the Limited Competitive Examination (LCE) cannot be termed to be arbitrary, discriminatory or capricious.

Case Number : T. C. (c) No. 11 / 2017
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta

70. Sudama Devi Vs. Vijay Nath Gupta

Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - Sub-section(4) of Section 20 of the Act will not apply, if it is proved that a tenant or any member of his family, has either built or otherwise acquired the house in a vacant state, or has got vacated after acquisition, any residential building in the same city, municipality, notified area or town area.

Case Number : C. A. No. 5903 / 2012 17-04-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : V. J. Francis
Respondent's Advocate : Jogy Scaria
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. K. Agrawal, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre

71. Jalendra Padhiary Vs. Pragati Chhotray

Family Law - Maintenance - Family Court and the High Court did not even mention the factual narration of the case set up by the parties on the question of award of permanent alimony and without there being any discussion, appreciation, reasoning and categorical findings on the material issues such as, financial earning capacity of husband to pay the alimony and also the financial earning capacity of wife, a direction to pay Rs.15,00,000/- by way of permanent alimony to the wife was given. Such direction is wholly unsustainable in law.

Judgment Link: http://bit.ly/2JVixKf
Case Number : C. A. No. 3876 / 2018
Petitioner's Advocate : Robin Khokhar
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. K. Agrawal, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre

72. Dinesh Singh Thakur Vs. Sonal Thakur

Anti-Suit Injunctions are meant to restrain a party to a suit/proceeding from instituting or prosecuting a case in another court, including a foreign court. Simply put, an anti-suit injunction is a judicial order restraining one party from prosecuting a case in another court outside its jurisdiction.

Judgment Link : http://bit.ly/2HqaeaG
Case Number : C. A. No. 3878 / 2018 
Petitioner's Advocate : Vikas Mehta
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. K. Agrawal, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. K. Agrawal

73. Competition Commission of India Vs. Thomas Cook (India) Ltd.

Competition Act, 2002 - S. 43A - Competition Commission of India (Procedure in Regard to the Transaction of Business Relating to Combinations) Regulations, 2011 - The breach of the provision is punishable and considering the nature of the breach, it is open to impose the penalty.

Case Number : C.A. No. 13578 / 2015 17-04-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : Arjun Krishnan
Respondent's Advocate : Mayank Pandey
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra

74. SCM Solifert Ltd. Vs. Competition Commission of India

Competition Act, 2002 - Ss. 5(8), 6, 43A, 53T - Appeal - Regulation of combinations - Power to impose the penalty for non­furnishing of information on combinations - Form of notice for the proposed combination - The imposition of penalty under section 43A is on account of breach of a civil obligation, and the proceedings are neither criminal nor quasi­criminal. Thus, a penalty has to follow. Discretion in the provision under section 43A is with respect to quantum.

Case Number : C.A. No. 10678 / 2016 17-04-2018 
Petitioner's Advocate : Abhay Kumar 
Respondent's Advocate : Neeraj Shekhar 
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit 
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra

75. M. P. Power Generation Co. Ltd. Vs. Ansaldo Energia Spa

Contract Act, 1872 - Ss. 18 & 19 - "Misrepresentation" defined - Voidability of agreements without free consent - Even if the Board believed that Units 3 and 4 were in fact designed for a capacity of 120 MW and operated at 120 MW, if it was found later that the assertion relating to the said capacity and functioning was not true, a clear case of misrepresentation, as per Section 18 of the Contract Act was made out.

Case Number : C. A. No. 3804 / 2018 [16-04-2018]
Petitioner's Advocate : B. K. Satija
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. A. Bobde, Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao

76. Mohd. Ali Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Ss. 10, 25F & 25B - Reference - Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen - Definition of continuous service - The theory of 240 days for continuous service is that a workman is deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year, if he, during the period of twelve calendar months preceding the date of retrenchment has actually worked under the employer for not less than 240 days.

Case Number : C. A. No. 3803 / 2018 [16-04-2018]
Petitioner's Advocate : M. C. Dhingra
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. K. Agrawal, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. K. Agrawal

77. Shivaji Yallappa Patil Vs. Ranajeet Appasaheb Patil

Specific relief Act, 1963 - S. 20 - Discretion as to decreeing specific performance - the power to order specific performance of contract is discretionary and parties cannot claim it as a matter of right although it is lawful but such discretion should be exercised judicially and prudently.

Case Number : C. A. No. 5012 / 2008 [16-04-2018]
Petitioner's Advocate : Shankar Divate
Respondent's Advocate : S. N. Bhat
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. K. Agrawal, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. K. Agrawal

78. Manimegalai Vs. Special Tehsildar (land Acquisition Officer) Adi Dravidar Welfare

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - S. 4(1) - Acquisition of dry lands for the purpose of providing house sites to 250 landless poor Adi Dravidars - The interest of a section of the society may be public purpose when it is benefited by the acquisition. The acquisition in question must indicate that it was towards the welfare of the people and not to benefit a private individual or group of individuals joined collectively. Therefore, acquisition for anything which is not for a public purpose cannot be done compulsorily.

Case Number : C. A. No. 2294-2295 / 2011 [16-04-2018]
Petitioner's Advocate : R. Chandrachud
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. K. Agrawal, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. K. Agrawal

79. IBI Consultancy India Vs. DSC Ltd. 

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Ss. 11(6) r/w. 11(9) - It is a cardinal principle of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act that the parties are free to decide the number of arbitrators, provided, it is an odd number, as well as the procedure for appointing them. However, if the parties are not able to agree on the said procedure, or constitute the Arbitral Tribunal to their mutual satisfaction, either of the party has an option to route to an appropriate remedy under Section 11 of the Act, which provides detailed machinery for appointment of Arbitrator through judicial intervention.

Case Number : Arbit. Case (c) No. 53 / 2016 [16-04-2018]
Petitioner's Advocate : Shibashish Misra
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. K. Agrawal, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. K. Agrawal

80. Mohammad Yusuf  Vs. State of Haryana

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Ss. 4 & 23 - Matters to be considered in determining compensation - Construction of Mini Secretariat - Development Charges - a cut at the rate of 10 % is very reasonable towards development of acquired land as some further development would obviously be required to make it fit for the purpose for which it was acquired.

Case Number : C. A. No. 3807-3825 / 2018 [16-04-2018]
Petitioner's Advocate : Avinash Kumar
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. K. Agrawal, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. K. Agrawal

81. Lok Prahari, Thr. Its General Secretary S. N. Shukla Vs. Union of India 

Salaries, Allowances and Pensions of Members of Parliament Act, 1954 - Constitutional validity of certain Amendments - The provisions under challenge fall under two categories (i) provisions which confer the right of free travel etc. to the MPs and their ASSOCIATES; and (ii) provisions which confer the benefit of pension and the right of free travel etc. to the ex­MPs and their ASSOCIATES.

Case Number : C. A. No. 3798-3798 / 2018 [16-04-2018]
Petitioner's Advocate : Petitioner-in-person
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar

82. Navaneethakrishnan Vs. State By Inspector of Police

Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 27 is applicable only if the confessional statement leads to the discovery of some new fact. The relevance is limited as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered.

Case Number : Crl. A. No. 1134 / 2013 [16-04-2018]
Petitioner's Advocate : K. K. Mani
Respondent's Advocate : M. Yogesh Kanna
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. K. Agrawal, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. K. Agrawal

83. Kerala Ayurveda Paramparya Vaidya Forum Vs. State of Kerala

The persons having no recognized and approved qualifications, having little knowledge about the indigenous medicines, are becoming medical practitioners and playing with the lives of thousands and millions of people. Some time such quacks commit blunders and precious lives are lost.

Judgments Link : http://bit.ly/2H2xIz2
Case Number : C. A. No. 897 / 2009 [16-04-2018]
Petitioner's Advocate : T. G. Narayanan Nair
Respondent's Advocate : G. Prakash
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. K. Agrawal, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. K. Agrawal

84. M/s Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. Vs. M/s Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. 

Whether an Umpire has to hear the matter de novo on a Reference or from the stage of disagreement between the Arbitrators? Whether in a case where the matter has been referred to the Umpire owing to disagreement between the Arbitrators, the Umpire has to confine himself only to hear the issues on which the arbitrators disagreed or he has to hear the matter afresh ? What does the word de novo hearing means?

Case Number : C. A. No. 3776 / 2018 [13-04-2018]
Petitioner's Advocate : Pramod B. Agarwala
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. K. Agrawal, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. K. Agrawal

85. Shiva Kant Jha Vs. Union of India

Procedure for Medical Reimbursement Claim (MRC) in Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) - The right to medical claim cannot be denied merely because the name of the hospital is not included in the Government Order.

Case Number : W. P. (C) No. 694 / 2015 [13-04-2018]
Petitioner's Advocate : Petitioner-in-person
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. K. Agrawal, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. K. Agrawal

86. Hemraj Chandrakar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

Land Acquisition - Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches - Division Bench dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Single Judge observing that there is not a single averment that the possession of the land has not been taken - felt aggrieved and filed this appeal by way of special leave before this Court - the writ petitioners have made specific averments that they are in possession of the land in question - it just and proper to remand the case to the Division Bench of the High Court and request the Division Bench to decide the writ appeal afresh in accordance with law.

Case Number : C. A. No. 3778 / 2018 [13-04-2018]
Petitioner's Advocate : Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. K. Agrawal, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre

87. Sucha Singh Sodhi (d) Thr. Lrs. Vs. Baldev Raj Walia

A plaintiff cannot claim a relief of specific performance of agreement against the defendant on a cause of action on which he has claimed a relief of permanent injunction.

Judgment Link : http://bit.ly/2GVNFep
Case Number : C. A. No. 3777 / 2018 [13-04-2018]
Petitioner's Advocate : Prerna Mehta
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. K. Agrawal, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre

88. K. K. Mishra Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Merely because the trial is over and has ended in the conviction of the accused and the matter is presently pending before the High Court in appeal should not come in the way of interdicting the same.

Judgment Link : http://bit.ly/2qvMLu9
Case Number : Crl. A. No. 547 / 2018 [13-04-2018]
Petitioner's Advocate : Kabir Dixit
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi
Judgment By Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi

89. Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. M/s. Madhan Agro Industries (i) Pvt. Ltd.

Whether coconut oil manufactured and packed in “small containers” by the ­assessee (s) is classifiable under Heading 1513 or under Heading 3305 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985

Case Number : C. A. No. 1766 / 2009 [13-04-2018]
Petitioner's Advocate : B. Krishna Prasad
Respondent's Advocate : E. C. Agrawala
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi

90. Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Aishwarya Industries

Whether 'Coconut Oil' manufactured and packed in small containers and sachets, is classifiable under Chapter Heading 3305 ("Hair Oil", "Other") as claimed by the Revenue or under Chapter 15 Heading 1513 : Coconut (Copra) oil - In view of the difference of opinion in terms of the judgments in the present appeals, the Registry is directed to place the said appeals before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders.

Case Number : C. A. No. 6703-6710 / 2009 [13-04-2018]
Petitioner's Advocate : B. Krishna Prasad
Respondent's Advocate : E. C. Agrawala
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi

91. Union Public Service Commission Vs. M. Sathiya Priya

Selection Committee may be guided by the classification adopted by the State Government but, for good reasons, the Selection Committee may evolve its own classification which may be at variance with the grading given in the Annual Confidential Reports.

Case Number : C. A. No. 10854 / 2014 [13-04-2018]
Petitioner's Advocate : Binu Tamta
Respondent's Advocate : Chandra Prakash
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar


92. Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association Vs. Union of India

Regulation 9(4) and (8) of the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000, as framed by the Medical Council of India, are under challenge.

Case Number : W. P. (c) No. 196 / 2018 [13-04-2018]
Petitioner's Advocate : Khaitan & Co. 
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph

93. D. Saravanan Vs. Superintending Engineer Tangedco Tneb Distribution Circle

Advocate - A presumption that an Advocate is supposed to know the law can be raised but there can be no presumption that an Advocate is well aware of all procedural requirements regarding making of an application for agricultural service connection.

Judgment Link : http://bit.ly/2J4r5gw
Case Number : C. A. No. 3763 / 2018 [12-04-2018]
Petitioner's Advocate : Sneha Kalita
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan

94. State of Gujarat Vs. Utility Users Welfare Association Through Its President

Electricity Act, 2003 - S. 84(2) - Central and State Regulatory Commissions - Member of Law - Whether the expression “may” should be read as “shall”, i.e., whether it is mandatory to have a judicial mind presiding over these Commissions in the form of a Judge? Section 84(2) of the said Act is only an enabling provision to appoint a High Court Judge as a Chairperson of the State Commission of the said Act and it is not mandatory to do so.

Case Number : C. A. No. 14697 / 2015 [12-04-2018]
Petitioner's Advocate : Hemantika Wahi
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul 

95. Tongbram Bimolchand Singh Vs. Yumlembam Surjit Singh

Re-verification of the answer scripts of all the candidates who participated in the selection conducted by the MPSC for Manipur Civil Services.

Case Number : C.A. No. 3752-3753 / 2018 12-04-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : Rajiv Mehta
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph

96. Asok Pande Vs. Supreme Court of India

Constitution of India - Article 32, 145 - Supreme Court Rules, 2013 - Evolution of a “set procedure” for constituting Benches and allotment of cases to different Benches - In the allocation of cases and the constitution of benches the Chief Justice has an exclusive prerogative - As a repository of constitutional trust, the Chief Justice is an institution in himself.

Case Number : W. P. (c) No. 147 / 2018 [11-04-2018]
Petitioner's Advocate : Petitioner-in-person
Bench : Hon'ble The Chief Justice, Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. M. Khanwilkar, Hon'ble Dr. Justice D. Y. Chandrachud
Judgment By : Hon'ble Dr. Justice D. Y. Chandrachud

97. A. P Industrial Inf. Corp. Ltd.  Vs. S. N Raj Kumar 

Administrative Law - Doctrine of Proportionality - In the realm of Administrative Law ‘proportionality’ is a principle where the Court is concerned with the process, method or manner in which the decision-maker has ordered his priorities and reached a conclusion or arrived at a decision. The very essence of decision-making consists in the attribution of relative importance to the factors and considerations in the case. The doctrine of proportionality thus steps in focus true nature of exercise – the elaboration of a rule of permissible priorities. De Smith also states that ‘proportionality’ involves ‘balancing test’ and ‘necessity test’. The ‘balancing test’ permits scrutiny of excessive onerous penalties or infringement of rights or interests and a manifest imbalance of relevant considerations.

Case Number : C. A. No. 3020 / 2018 [10-04-2018]
Petitioner's Advocate : Guntur Prabhakar
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. K. Sikri, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. K. Sikri

98. Baxis Singh Vs. Sukhdev Singh (d) Thr Lrs.

Specific Performance - Sale Agreement - Will - Relying on two orders of the competent court, the High Court has concluded that second defendant is the owner and in possession of the property on the basis of the Will. The High Court, has rightly denied specific performance of the agreement in favour of the plaintiff and directed refund of the amount by the first defendant with interest @ 6% p.a.

Case Number : C. A. No. 6303 / 2012 [10-04-2018]
Petitioner's Advocate : Pratibha Jain
Respondent's Advocate : K. V. Bharathi Upadhyaya
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. V. Ramana, Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. V. Ramana

99. Chotanben Vs. Kiritbhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - O. 7 R. 11(d) - Scope of power of the Court to reject the plaint - What is relevant for answering the matter in issue in the context of the application under Order VII Rule 11(d), is to examine the averments in the plaint. The plaint is required to be read as a whole. The defence available to the defendants or the plea taken by them in the written statement or any application filed by them, cannot be the basis to decide the application under Order VII Rule 11(d). Only the averments in the plaint are germane.

Case Number : C. A. No. 3500 / 2018 [10-04-2018]
Petitioner's Advocate : Purvish Jitendra Malkan
Bench : Hon'ble The Chief Justice, Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. M. Khanwilkar, Hon'ble Dr. Justice D. Y. Chandrachud
Judgment By : Hon'ble The Chief Justice

100. Sarswati Singh Vs. Shailesh Singh

Pursuant to the interim directions, the petitioners deposited a sum of Rs 35 lakhs. Out of the said amount, a sum of Rs 25 lakhs was withdrawn by the respondents. A balance of Rs 10 lakhs is lying in deposit with the Registry which was invested in a fixed deposit. The aforesaid amounts were directed to be deposited by this Court in order to test the bona fides of the petitioners. Now that the writ petition has been dismissed, we find merit in the application of the petitioners, that they are entitled to a refund of the amount of Rs 35 lakhs and the return of the title deeds deposited in this Court.

Case Number : M.A. 617 / 2018 [10-04-2018]
Petitioner's Advocate : Ranjeeta Rohatgi
Bench : Hon'ble The Chief Justice, Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. M. Khanwilkar, Hon'ble Dr. Justice D. Y. Chandrachud
Judgment By : Hon'ble The Chief Justice

101. Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu Public (Law and Order) Revenue Department Vs. Kamala

Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities (COFEPOSA) Act, 1974 - High Court was not justified in quashing the order of detention on the basis that no period of detention was provided in the order - Commissioner of Police v Gurbux Anandram Bhiryani, 1988 (Supp) SCC 568 which is no longer good law in view of the subsequent decision of a larger Bench in T Devaki v Government of Tamil Nadu, (1990) 2 SCC 456. The decision of the High Court in S Santhi v. The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai, 2010 (3) MWN (Cr.) 42 (DB) to the extent that it adopts the same position as in Bhiryani, will not reflect the correct legal position.

Case Number : Crl. A. No. 507 / 2018 [10-04-2018]
Petitioner's Advocate : M. Yogesh Kanna
Bench : Hon'ble The Chief Justice, Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. M. Khanwilkar, Hon'ble Dr. Justice D. Y. Chandrachud
Judgment By : Hon'ble The Chief Justice

102. Aparbal Yadav Vs. State of U.P.

Service Law - Payment of Salary - Stopping salary of a teacher, who is continuously working for last thirty years, only on the basis of doubt is not justified.

Case Number : C. A. No. 3695 / 2018 [10-04-2018]
Petitioner's Advocate : Rameshwar Prasad Goyal
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph


103. Bharatiya Janata Party West Bengal Vs. State of West Bengal

In order to ensure fair and free election to the panchayats, the State Election Commission shall take appropriate steps to remove the apprehensions of the petitioner and/or intending candidates and they may not be deprived of their chance to contest the panchayat elections.

Case Number : W. P. (C) No. 302 / 2018 [09-04-2018]
Petitioner's Advocate : Nachiketa Joshi
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. K. Agrawal, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. K. Agrawal

104. Kameshwar Singh Vs. State of Bihar

Behaviour of the witnesses or their reactions would differ from situation to situation and individual to individual. Expecting uniformity in their reactions would be unrealistic, and no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to the uniformity of the human reaction.

Case Number : Crl. A. No. 903 / 2012 [09-04-2018]
Petitioner's Advocate : M. A. Chinnasamy
Respondent's Advocate : Vinod Kumar Tewari
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar

105. Munshiram Vs. State of Rajasthan

Penal Code, 1860 - S. 306 - Abetment of Suicide - allegations that due to continuous humiliation and suffering inflicted upon by the wife and her family members, the Husband committed suicide - In light of the fact that the enquiry was pending and there are aspects which may require investigation, the High Court erred in quashing the FIR at the threshold itself without allowing the investigation to proceed.

Case Number : Crl. A. No. 515-516 / 2018 [09-04-2018]
Petitioner's Advocate : Manish K. Bishnoi
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. V. Ramana, Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. V. Ramana

106. Uma Pandey Vs. Munna Pandey

Interpretation of any document including its contents or its admissibility in evidence or its effect on the rights of the parties to the Lis constitutes a substantial question(s) of law within the meaning of Section 100 CPC.

Case Number : C. A. No. 3657 / 2018 [09-04-2018]
Petitioner's Advocate : Akhilesh Kumar Pandey
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. K. Agrawal, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre

107. Sanjay Kumar Sinha Vs. Asha Kumari

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - S. 24 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - S. 125 - Maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings - Consequent upon passing of the maintenance order u/s. 24, the order passed u/s. 125 stands superseded.

Case Number : C. A. No. 3658 / 2018 [09-04-2018]
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. K. Agrawal, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre

108. S.V. Asgaonkar Vs. Mumbai Metropolitan Regn. Devt. Auth.

Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority Act, 1974 - Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (Disposal of Land) Regulations, 1977.

Case Number : C. A. No. -003488-003488 / 2018 [09-04-2018] 
Petitioner's Advocate : Shubhangi Tuli
Respondent's Advocate : Anagha S. Desai
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. K. Sikri, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan

109. Punjab State Vs. Harbans Kaur (Dead) Thr. Lrs.

Delay Condoned - since the connected matters have already been sent back to the High Court, these appeals are disposed.

Case Number : C. A. No. 3660-3661 / 2018 [09-04-2018]
Petitioner's Advocate : Ranjeeta Rohatgi
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph

110. Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

Motor Accident Claims - Contributory Negligence - Negligent Driving without any evidence about the motor vehicle being driven negligently by the applicant at the time of accident cannot be assumed.

Case Number : C. A. No. 2499-2500 / 2018 [06-04-2018]
Petitioner's Advocate : P. V. Saravana Raja
Respondent's Advocate : Aishwarya Bhati
Bench : Hon'ble The Chief Justice, Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. M. Khanwilkar, Hon'ble Dr. Justice D. Y. Chandrachud
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. M. Khanwilkar

111. Raghunath Prasad Pande Vs. State of Karnataka

It would be futile exercise on the part of the petitioner to once again carry out the procedure as contemplated under Section 14(5) of the Mysore Land Reforms Act, that too only in order to fulfil the formalities. The view of the High Court is hyper technical and too sophisticated under the facts of the case.

Case Number : C. A. No. 3621 / 2018 [06-04-2018]
Petitioner's Advocate : Ankolekar Gurudatta
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar

112. Seema Upadhyay Vs. Union of India, Ministry Of Petroleum And Natural Gas

Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply, Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order, 2005 and the Kerosene (Restriction on Use and Fixation of Ceiling Price) Order, 1993 have made provisions to enable the States and Union Territories to take action against malpractices - Ministry intends to implement the direct transfer scheme in kerosene in identified districts of different states on a pilot basis.

Case Number : W. P. (c) No. 675 / 2013 [05-04-2018]
Petitioner's Advocate : Dr. Rajeev Sharma
Bench : Hon'ble The Chief Justice, Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. M. Khanwilkar, Hon'ble Dr. Justice D. Y. Chandrachud
Judgment By : Hon'ble Dr. Justice D. Y. Chandrachud


113. Bhartiben Nayabha Ker Vs. Sidabha Pethabha Manke

Motor Accident Claims - Interest - there was no justification for the High Court to reduce the award of interest from 9% p.a. to 6% p.a - The rate of interest of 9% p.a. fixed by the Tribunal is restored.

Case Number : C. A. No. 2697 / 2018 [05-04-2018]
Petitioner's Advocate : Purvish Jitendra Malkan
Bench : Hon'ble The Chief Justice, Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. M. Khanwilkar, Hon'ble Dr. Justice D. Y. Chandrachud
Judgment By : Hon'ble Dr. Justice D. Y. Chandrachud

114. Ashim Ranjan Das (D) by Lrs. Vs. Shibu Bodhak

West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953 - Chapter II - Ss. 2, 4, 5, 6, 44(2a) - Acquisition of estates and of the rights of intermediaries therein - Draft and final publication of the record of rights - Once the process is followed, the rights of intermediary is to vest in the State, free from all encumbrances and the exceptions are provided in Section 6(1).

Case Number : C. A. No. -003932-003932 / 2009 [05-04-2018]
Petitioner's Advocate : S. K. Bhattacharya
Respondent's Advocate : Rauf Rahim
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar

115. M. P. Power Management Company Ltd. Vs. Renew Clean Energy Pvt. Ltd.

Contract - Termination of - Delay - In cases of delay, Articles 2.5 and 2.6 provide for levy of penalty. As observed by the High Court, since the contract permits imposition of penalty, respondent No.1 is liable to pay penalty in terms of clause 2.5.1 of the PPA for the delay. But the action of the appellant in terminating the contract is arbitrary and was rightly set aside by the High Court.

Case Number : C. A. No. 3600 / 2018 [05-04-2018]
Petitioner's Advocate : Mishra Saurabh
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi

116. Nonihal Singh Vs. Maya Devi

Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 - S. 9 - default in payment of rent - extension of time and miscellaneous application to condone delay in depositing arrears of rent and mesne profits.

Case Number : C. A. No. 3687-3688 / 2018 [05-04-2018]
Petitioner's Advocate : Usha Nandini. V
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. K. Sikri

117. Dr. Kriti Lakhina Vs. State of Karnataka

Clause 4.1 of the Information Bulletin (PGET-2018) which was published on the website on 10.03.2018 to be invalid to the extent it disqualifies petitioners and similarly situated candidates who completed their MBBS/BDS Degree Courses from colleges situated in Karnataka from competing for admission to Post-Graduate Medical/Dental Courses in Government Medical Colleges and against government quota seats in non-governmental institutions.

Case Number : W. P. (C) No. 204 / 2018 [04-04-2018] 
Petitioner's Advocate : Amit Kumar
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra

118. Avinash C Vs. State of Karnataka Chief Secretary

Selection conducted by the Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) - complaints of mal-practices and irregularities in the conduct of examinations as well as the interviews - It may not always be necessary to segregate tainted and untainted candidates when the process itself is tainted.

Case Number : C. A. No. 3543-3555 / 2018 [04-04-2018]
Petitioner's Advocate : Nishanth Patil
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel

119. Prasar Bharati Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Income Tax Act, 1961 - S. 194 H & 201 - Deducted on any income by way of commission or brokerage - consequences of failure to deduct or pay tax - the payment in question was in the nature of "commission" paid by the Prasar Bharati Doordarshan Kendra to the advertisement agencies to secure more business for them - Once it is held that the provisions of Section 194H apply to the transactions in question, it is obligatory upon the appellant to have deducted the income tax while making payment to the advertisement agencies. The non-compliance of Section 194H by the assessee attracts the rigor of Section 201 which provides for consequences of failure to deduct or pay the tax as provided under Section 194H of the Act.

Case Number : C. A. No. 3496-3497 / 2018 [03-04-2018]
Petitioner's Advocate : Rajeev Sharma
Respondent's Advocate : Anil Katiyar
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. K. Agrawal, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre

120. Shafhi Mohammad Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh

Videography of crime scene during investigation is of immense value in improving administration of criminal justice.

Case Number : SLP (Crl) No. 2302 / 2017 [03-04-2018]
Petitioner's Advocate : E. R. Sumathy
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel

121. ONGC Purbanchal Employees Association  Vs. Union of India

Division Bench needs to consider the appeal(s) on merits by deciding on the correctness of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, instead of remitting the matter to the Industrial Tribunal.

Case Number : C. A. No. 3511-3511 / 2018 [03-04-2018]
Petitioner's Advocate : Pravir Choudhary
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph

122. M. Kuppaswamy (D) Tr. Lrs. Vs. R. Vandana

Mediation - Memorandum of Settlement - parties have arrived at a settlement - appeal is hence disposed of in terms of the Settlement.

Case Number : C. A. No. 3473-3473 / 2018 [02-04-2018]
Petitioner's Advocate : Vijay Kumar
Respondent's Advocate : Anjana Chandrashekar
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph


123. Lakshmi Narain Dubey Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

Service Law - Service under the Management - Can be terminated from service only after a show cause notice is issued and his explanation is considered.

Case Number : C. A. No. 3474-3474 / 2018 [02-04-2018]
Petitioner's Advocate : Aftab Ali Khan
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph

124. Shanti Devi Vs. State of Haryana

Land Acquisition - Enhancement of Compensation - Connected matters arising out of the common judgment have been remitted to the High Court. Accordingly, these appeals are disposed of remitting the matters to the High Court.

Case Number : C. A. No. 3475-3476 / 2018 [02-04-2018]
Petitioner's Advocate : T. Mahipal
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph

125. Chandrabosh Tripathi Vs. Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board

Compassionate Appointment - Eligibility - Availability of the Vacancies - direction to the Electricity Board to complete the formalities and pass formal orders.

Case Number : C. A. No. 3477-3478 / 2018 [02-04-2018]
Petitioner's Advocate : Ashwani Kumar Dubey
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph

126. Lakshmi @ Lakshmamma Vs. Chanmundamma

Compassionate Appointment - Long pending disputes between two 'wives' of deceased J - A suggestion was put as to whether one party would be satisfied with compassionate appointment and leave the rest of the benefits and property to the other party - parties have agreed to the suggestion.

Case Number : C. A. No. 3479-3479 / 2018 [02-04-2018]
Petitioner's Advocate : Prakash Ranjan Nayak
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph