Kerala High Court

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

Madhya Pradesh High Court

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

Delhi High Court

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

14 Important Indian Courts Cases Pronounced Today [Wednesday, 2nd May 2018]

1. Sandip Chauhan v. State of Bihar [Patna High Court]

Compassionate Appointment - It is not a source of recruitment, it is a policy decision based on a sound public policy provided in the clarification that where any of the dependents of the deceased government servant is "gainfully employed", no other dependent would be entitled to get the benefit of the scheme of compassionate appointment. Government has come out with a policy that the dependent who is gainfully employed is living separately from other dependents cannot be a reason to provide appointment and irrespective of that whether employed one lives together or separately the other dependents would not get the benefit of compassion.

2. Oriental Insurance Company v. Narbheram Power and Steel Pvt. Ltd. [Supreme Court of India]

Arbitration clause is required to be strictly construed. Any expression in the clause must unequivocally express the intent of arbitration. It can also lay the postulate in which situations the arbitration clause cannot be given effect to. If a clause stipulates that under certain circumstances there can be no arbitration, and they are demonstrably clear then the controversy pertaining to the appointment of arbitrator has to be put to rest.

3. Seven Eleven Education Society v. Asst CIT 2, Thane [Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai]

Assessee cannot be penalised for the delay in disposing of the application filed by the assessee for registration, that the AO and the FAA were not justified in holding that in absence of the registration certificate the assessee could not claim the exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. The assessee was to be treated to be deemed to be registered trust from the sixth month of the lodging the registration application with the CIT-1 Thane.

4. Ali Akbar Jafari v. Harish Manghwani [National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission]

Whether the time stipulated under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing written statement is mandatory and whether no flexibility is available with the Court in the interest of justice.

5. Ramadhar v. Ansuiya Prasad [Madhya Pradesh High Court]

In exercise of powers under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, the Court can interfere with the finding of fact only if the same is shown to be perverse and based on no evidence.

6. Commnr. of Income Tax, Chennai v. M/s. S. Ajit Kumar [Supreme Court of India]

Income Tax Act, 1961 - S. 158BB - Computation of undisclosed income of the block period - Whether the material found in the course of survey in the premises of the builder could be used in Block Assessment of the assessee ? Held, Assessing Officer was justified in taking the adverse material collected or found during the survey or any other method while making the Block Assessment.

7. Tularam v. State of Madhya Pradesh [Supreme Court of India]

Penal Code, 1860 - Exception 4 to Section 300 - Ingredients of - fight was sudden and not premeditated - this is the finding of both the courts - T is not found to have taken undue advantage of his carrying a ballam in the sense of inflicting any other serious injury, except a contusion - That being the position, it cannot be held that T had the intention to murder B or to cause him such bodily injury as likely to cause death.

8. Arvind Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar [Patna High Court] 

Pension Rules (Bihar- Rule 43(c) - Gratuity - Leave Encashment - Gratuity cannot be withheld - Leave Encashment of a Government employee can be withheld - Withholding of the leave encashment is not by virtue of the provisions of the Bihar Pension Rules or the leave rules, but, encashment of leave, being governed by executive instructions, its withholding by executive instruction is permissible and is in accordance with law.

9. Madan Labana v. Moseen Bi [Madhya Pradesh High Court]

Issue relating to impleadment of the co-owners in a suit for specific performance of contract.

10. Ramesh Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar [Patna High Court]

Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 - S. 16(3) - Pre-emption application.

11. Poonam Satyarthi v. State [Madhya Pradesh High Court]

Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 498-A, 323, 406 - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Ss. 3 & 4 - allegation as made in the FIR are omnibus in nature - no specific role has been assigned to the petitioner - complainant has falsely implicated all her in-laws - proceedings quashed.

12. Sonu Gupta v. State [Madhya Pradesh High Court]

Penal Law - Suspension of Sentence - deceased sustained 62-65% burnt injuries, she died after 15 days of the incident due to septicemia - appellant is in jail since 2014 - He has completed more than four years of actual jail sentence near about five years jail sentence including remission - Looking to the totality of the circumstances and evidence on record the application is allowed.

13. State of M.P. v. Bhupendrasingh [Madhya Pradesh High Court]

Review Petition - Order was passed by High Court on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court - there is no error apparent on the face of the record in the order of High Court, hence no case for review is made out - there is a delay of 329 days in filing the review petition which has not been properly explained -  Hence, the review petition is dismissed on merit as also on delay.

14. Splendor Landbase Ltd. v. Satbir Singh [National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission]

Consumer Law - In the event of a developer failing to deliver possession of the property within the stipulated period, for any reason, save and except a force majeure condition, agreed to between the contracting parties, an allottee cannot be compelled to accept an alternate site/plot and he would be within his rights to seek refund of the amount deposited with the developer against allotment - Non delivery of an allotted plot, after receipt of full consideration thereof, tantamounts to deficiency in rendering service as also unfair trade practice - the Complainant was entirely justified in praying for the refund of the price deposited with interest for withholding the money.