75 Important Supreme Court of India Judgments & Orders May 2018


1. Rupinder Singh Sandhu Vs. State of Punjab 

Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 304/34 - Before a man can be convicted of a crime, it is usually necessary for the prosecution to prove that a certain event or a certain state of affairs which is forbidden by the criminal law has been caused by his conduct and that this conduct was accompanied by a prescribed state of mind. The event or state of affairs is usually called the actus reus and the state of mind, the mens rea of the crime. Both these elements must be proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. 

Case Number : Crl. A. No. 58 / 2007 15-05-2018 
Petitioner's Advocate : Sudarshan Singh Rawat 
Respondent's Advocate : Jaspreet Gogia 
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul 
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar 

2. Gurmeet Pal Singh Vs. State of Punjab 

Constitution of India - Article 309 - Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007 - Effect of elevation of a Judge from the category of direct advocate recruits to the High Court - The provision wrongfully made in the advertisement reserving two seats for Ex-Servicemen - The recruitment of two Judges from Fast Track Courts - Non-availability of candidate with disability - The larger recruitment was possible since the cadre strength was more - Discussed. 

Case Number : C. A. No. 4853 / 2018 15-05-2018 
Petitioner's Advocate : Upasana Nath 
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul 
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar 

3. Selvi Vs. Gopalakrishnan Nair 

This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 13.04.2006 passed by the High Court of Madras at Madurai Bench in Second Appeal No.255 of 2005 in and by which the High Court set aside the final decree passed by the trial court and affirmed by the First Appellate Court by holding that the appellant/plaintiff cannot lay a claim in respect of Survey No.988 which the first respondent/second defendant claims entitled to. 

Case Number : C. A. No. 21834 / 2017 15-05-2018 
Petitioner's Advocate : Revathy Raghavan 
Respondent's Advocate : R. Ayyam Perumal 
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi 
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi 

4. Khurshid Ahmed Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir 

Ranbir Penal Code - Ss. 302/341 - Importance of existence of motive in a criminal case. 

Case Number : Crl. A. No. 872 / 2015 15-05-2018 
Petitioner's Advocate : Syed Mehdi Imam 
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. V. Ramana, Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer 
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. V. Ramana 

5. Manoj Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 

Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 302, 341 & 323 r/w. 34 - there was a sudden verbal quarrel and evidently there was no pre-meditated plan to attack the deceased - In view of the civil disputes already pending between both the families, a minor verbal exchange bloated into a sudden physical attack - in the absence of intention to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the offence does not fall within the scope of Section 300, IPC but it will fall within Section 304, Part II of the IPC. 

Case Number Crl. A. No. 795 / 2011 15-05-2018 
Petitioner's Advocate : Shiv Ram Sharma 
Respondent's Advocate Varinder Kumar Sharma 
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. V. Ramana, Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer 
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. V. Ramana

6. Siddagangaiah (d) Thr. Lrs Vs. N.K. Giriraja Shetty (d) Thr. Lrs 

Case Number : C.A. No. 5007 / 2018 11-05-2018 
Petitioner's Advocate : Ap & J Chambers 
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit 
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra 

7. Sheila Sebastian Vs. R. Jawaharaj 

Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 463, 464, 465 - Forgery - Making a false document - An offence of forgery cannot lie against a person who has not created it or signed it. 

Case Number : Crl. A. No. -000359-000360 / 2010 11-05-2018 
Petitioner's Advocate : Pramod Dayal 
Respondent's Advocate : Legion of Lawyers 
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. V. Ramana, Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer 
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. V. Ramana

8. Kumar Vs. State Rep. By Inspector of Police 

The criminal justice must be above reproach. It is irrelevant whether the falsity lie in the statement of witnesses or the guilt of the accused. The investigative authority has a responsibility to investigate in a fair manner and elicit truth. 

Case Number : Crl. A. No. 409 / 2017 11-05-2018 
Petitioner's Advocate : Ankur Prakash 
Respondent's Advocate : M. Yogesh Kanna 
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. V. Ramana, Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer 
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. V. Ramana 

9. Mahesh Chandra Verma Vs. State of Jharkhand 

Whether the services rendered by the appellants/Judicial Officers as Fast Track court Judges is liable to be counted for their pensionary and other benefits, the appellants having joined the regular judicial service thereafter ? 

Case Number : C. A. No. 4782 / 2018 11-05-2018 
Petitioner's Advocate : Balaji Srinivasan 
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul 
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul 

10. Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand 

Jharkhand Judicial Service (Recruitment) Rules, 2004 - Bihar Government Servant (Hindi Examination) Regulation, 1968 - Rule 21(b) r/w. Rule 7 - Bihar Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Training and Departmental Examination Rules, 1963 - Rule 27(a) - the legal position prevalent as per the 2004 Rules does not require passing of the Hindi examination held by the Revenue Department as the 1963 Bihar Rules cannot be read into the 2004 Rules. 

Case Number : C. A. No. 877 / 2018 11-05-2018 
Petitioner's Advocate : Mitter & Mitter Co. 
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul 
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul 

11. Vijay Vs. Nana 

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - the jurisdiction of the High Court to decide the second appeal was confined only to questions framed and not beyond it. 

Case Number : C. A. No. 6272 / 2010 11-05-2018 
Petitioner's Advocate : Chandan Ramamurthi 
Respondent's Advocate : Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure 
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre 
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre 

12. Suresh Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 

Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 307/149 - Whether the concurrent findings of both the Courts below have any kind of infirmity or/and whether the concurrent findings are capable of being legally and factually sustainable or need to be reversed ? 

Case Number : Crl. A. No. 1586 / 2009 11-05-2018 
Petitioner's Advocate : Nilofar Khan 
Respondent's Advocate : C. D. Singh 
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre 
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre 

13. Dr. Rachit Sinha Vs. Union of India 

The direction to conduct 2nd round of counselling is restricted to the States and not to the deemed/Central institutions. 

Case Number : MA-1344 / 2018 11-05-2018 
Petitioner's Advocate : Amit Kumar 
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. A. Bobde, Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao 
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. A. Bobde 

14. DTC Security Staff Union (Regd.) Vs. DTC 

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Grant of pay scale is a highly technical and complex matter, which requires consideration of a host of factors, such as the qualifications for the posts, the method of recruitment, the nature of duties, etc. Therefore, the Courts/ Tribunal are loathe to interfere in matters with regard to grant of pay­scale. 

Case Number : C. A. No. 5005 / 2018 11-05-2018 
Petitioner's Advocate : Anitha Shenoy 
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha 
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha10. Raj Kumar Gandhi Vs. Chandigarh Administration 

15. Raj Kumar Gandhi Vs. Chandigarh Administration 

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Ss. 4, 6 & 11A - Whether the award was passed within the period stipulated under section 11A from the date of publication of declaration under section 6 excluding the period of stay

Case Number : C.A. No. 4265-4266 / 2008 11-05-2018 
Petitioner's Advocate : Delhi Law Chambers 
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit 
Judgment By Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra 

16. Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. M/s. Grasim Industries Ltd. Through Its Secretary 

Central Excise Act, 1944 - S. 4 - Whether the charges viz. packing charges, wear and tear charges, facility charges, service charges, delivery and collection charges, rental charges, repair and testing charges realised by the Assessees are liable to be taken into account for determination of value for the purpose of levy of duty

Case Number : C. A. No. 3159 / 2004 11-05-2018 
Petitioner’s Advocate : B. Krishna Prasad 
Respondent’s Advocate : Rajesh Kumar 
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi 

17. Commissioner of Central Central Excise Bangalore Vs. M/s Bhoruka Gases Ltd. 

The respondent – Assessees are manufacturers of dissolved and compressed industrial gases, liquid chlorine and other allied products. Cotton yarn and Post Mix Concentrate manufactured by two other individual assessees are also in issue.

Case Number : C. A. No. 4820 / 2008 11-05-2018 
Petitioner’s Advocate : B. Krishna Prasad 
Respondent’s Advocate : Nikhil Nayyar 
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi 

18. Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. M/s Govind Poy Oxygen Ltd. Through Manager 

These articles are supplied to the customers in tonners, cylinders, carboys, paper cones and HDPE bags, BIBs, pipeline and canisters, which may be more conveniently referred to as “containers”. In some cases the containers are provided by the Assessees to the customers on rent whereas in others the customers bring their own containers.

Case Number : C. A. No. 6695 / 2008 11-05-2018 
Petitioner’s Advocate : B. Krishna Prasad 
Respondent’s Advocate : Brij Bhushan 
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi 

19. Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. M/s. Ultra Marine 

For making available or for filling up the containers provided by the customers the Assessees charge the customers certain amounts under different heads.

Case Number : C. A. No. 7143-007143 / 2005 11-05-2018 
Petitioner’s Advocate : B. Krishna Prasad 
Respondent’s Advocate : V. N. Raghupathy 
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi 

20. Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai Vs. M/s. Sri Vigneswara Cotton Mills Ltd. 

Whether Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as substituted with effect from 1-7-2000) and the definition of “transaction value” in clause (d) of subsection (3) of Section 4 are subject to Section 3 of the Act?

Case Number : C. A. No. 2261-002261 / 2006 11-05-2018 
Petitioner’s Advocate : B. Krishna Prasad 
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi 

21. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs. M/s Boc India Ltd. 

Whether Sections 3 and 4 of the Central Excise Act, despite being interlinked, operate in different fields and what is their real scope and ambit?

Case Number : C. A. No. 2246-002247 / 2008 11-05-2018 
Petitioner’s Advocate : B. Krishna Prasad 
Respondent’s Advocate : Meera Mathur 
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi 

22. Commissioner of Central Excised Vs. M/s Tcp Ltd. 

Whether the concept of “transaction value” makes any material departure from the deemed normal price concept of the erstwhile Section 4(1)(a) of the Act?

Case Number : C. A. No. 3528-003528 / 2008 11-05-2018 
Petitioner’s Advocate : B. Krishna Prasad 
Respondent’s Advocate : V. N. Raghupathy 
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi 

23. Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. M/s. Inox Air Products Ltd. 

What is excise duty and what is the relationship between the nature of the duty and the measure of the levy are the two precise questions that would arise for determination in the present reference.

Case Number : C. A. No. 2986-002986 / 2005 11-05-2018 
Petitioner’s Advocate : B. Krishna Prasad 
Respondent’s Advocate : Prashant Kumar 
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi 

24. Commissioner of Central Excise,jalandhar Vs. M/s. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverges Private Limited 

Excise is a levy on manufacture and upon the manufacturer who is entitled under law to pass on the burden to the first purchaser of the manufactured goods.

Case Number : C. A. No. 2934-002935 / 2008 11-05-2018 
Petitioner’s Advocate : Mukesh Kumar Maroria 
Respondent’s Advocate : Rajan Narain 
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi 


25. Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. M/s. Boc (india) Ltd. Through Its Directors 

The levy of excise flows from a constitutional authorisation under Entry 84 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India.

Case Number : C. A. No. 2982-2985 / 2005 11-05-2018 
Petitioner’s Advocate : B. Krishna Prasad 
Respondent’s Advocate : K. Rajeev 
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi 

26. Commnr. of Central Excise, Madurai Vs. M/s. Tcp Ltd. 

The stage of collection of the levy and the measure thereof is, however, a statutory function. So long the statutory exercise in this regard is a competent exercise of legislative power, the legislative wisdom both with regard to the stage of collection and the measure of the levy must be allowed to prevail. The measure of the levy must not be confused with the nature thereof though there must be some nexus between the two. But the measure cannot be controlled by the rigors of the nature.

Case Number : C. A. No. 8541-8541 / 2009 11-05-2018 
Petitioner’s Advocate : B. Krishna Prasad 
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi 

27. Commissioner of Central Excise Chennai Vs. M/s Sicgil India Ltd. 

The early views on the nature of excise duty as a levy and the stage of collection thereof would make it clear that though the impost is on the manufacture of an article the point of collection of the same need not necessarily coincide with the time of manufacture. The stage of collection can and usually is a matter of administrative convenience and such stage, normally, is the stage of clearance of article when it, for the first time, enters the trade for sale.

Case Number : C. A. No. 445-445 / 2010 11-05-2018 
Petitioner’s Advocate : B. Krishna Prasad 
Respondent’s Advocate : V. N. Raghupathy 
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi 

28. Commissioner of Central Excise And Customs Vs. M/s Sicgil India Ltd. 

The measure of the levy contemplated in Section 4 of the Act will not be controlled by the nature of the levy. So long a reasonable nexus is discernible between the measure and the nature of the levy both Section 3 and 4 would operate in their respective fields.

Case Number : C. A. No. 1382-001382 / 2010 11-05-2018 
Petitioner’s Advocate : B. Krishna Prasad 
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi 

29. Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. M/s Tcp Ltd. 

There is no discernible difference in the statutory concept of ‘transaction value’ and the judicially evolved meaning of ‘normal price’.

Case Number : C. A. No. 2003-2004 / 2010 11-05-2018 
Petitioner’s Advocate : B. Krishna Prasad 
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi 

30. Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. M/s. Inox Air Products Ltd. 

Case Number : C. A. No. 2430 / 2010 11-05-2018 
Petitioner’s Advocate : B. Krishna Prasad 
Respondent’s Advocate : Ap & J Chambers 
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi 

31. Commr. of Cenral Excise Madurai Vs. M/s Tcp Ltd. 

Case Number : C. A. No. 7174-7175 / 2010 11-05-2018 
Petitioner’s Advocate : B. Krishna Prasad 
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi 

32. Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. M/s. T. C. P. Ltd. 

Case Number : C. A. No. 253 / 2010 11-05-2018 
Petitioner’s Advocate : B. Krishna Prasad 
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi 

33. Modi Gas and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise 

Case Number : C. A. No. 2363 / 2010 11-05-2018 
Petitioner’s Advocate : Sheela Goel 
Respondent’s Advocate : B. Krishna Prasad 
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi 

34. Siel Chemical Complex Vs. Commr. of Cen. Exc. Chadigarh 

Case Number : C. A. No. 4696-4696 / 2011 11-05-2018 
Petitioner’s Advocate : Meera Mathur 
Respondent’s Advocate : B. Krishna Prasad 
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi 

35. Commissioner of Central Tax Bengaluru East Commissionerate Vs. M/s Volvo India Ltd. 

Case Number : C. A. No. 2705-2705 / 2012 11-05-2018 
Petitioner’s Advocate : B. Krishna Prasad 
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi 

36. Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. M/s Inox Air Products Ltd. 

Case Number : C. A. No. 2534 / 2009 11-05-2018 
Petitioner’s Advocate : B. Krishna Prasad 
Respondent’s Advocate : Ap & J Chambers 
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi 

37. Commnr. of Central Excise, Kolkata Vs. M/s. Boc India Ltd. 

Case Number : C. A. No. 3455 / 2004 11-05-2018 
Petitioner’s Advocate : B. Krishna Prasad 
Respondent’s Advocate : K. Rajeev 
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi 

38. Commnr. of Custom Excise Mumbai Vs. M/s. Inox Air Products Ltd. 

Case Number : C. A. No. 6984 / 2011 11-05-2018 
Petitioner’s Advocate : B. Krishna Prasad 
Respondent’s Advocate : Ap & J Chambers 
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi 

39. Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. M/s. Grasim Industries Ltd. Through Manager 

Case Number : C. A. No. 7272 / 2005 11-05-2018 
Petitioner’s Advocate : B. Krishna Prasad 
Respondent’s Advocate : M. P. Devanath 
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi 

40. Mohini Dang Vs. State of U. P . 

Case Number : C. A. No. 4988 / 2018 10-05-2018 
Petitioner’s Advocate : Samir Malik 
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar 
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph 

41. M/s. Neel Enterprises Vs. State Bank of India 

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Set aside the impugned judgment, the order passed by the DRT declining to condone the delay of 14 days. The delay of 14 days is condoned.

Case Number : C. A. No. 4989 / 2018 10-05-2018 
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar 
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph 

42. Kalpana Mehta Vs. Union of India 

Whether in a litigation filed before this Court either under Article 32 or Article 136 of the Constitution of India, the Court can refer to and place reliance upon the report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee? 

Judgment Link : http://bit.ly/2ryRsnI 
Case Number : W. P. (C) No. 558 / 2012 09-05-2018 
Petitioner’s Advocate : Jyoti Mendiratta 
Judgment By : Hon'ble The Chief Justice 

43. Manoharan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu 

Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 498A, 302 r/w. 34 - Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998 (Tamil Nadu) - S. 4A(1)(2)(i). 

Case Number : Crl. A. No. 1340 / 2013 09-05-2018 
Petitioner’s Advocate : Revathy Raghavan 
Respondent’s Advocate : M. Yogesh Kanna 
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit 
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra 

44. Sarasamma @ Saraswathiyamma Vs. State Rep. By Deputy Superintendent of Police 

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Ss. 407 & 482 - Penal Code, 1860 - S. 307 - almost 21 witnesses so far have been examined and out of which 16 witnesses have turned hostile - some of the official witnesses have also turned hostile - the case is transferred from Additional Sessions Court, Hosur to Principal Sessions Court at Salem, Tamil Nadu. 

Case Number : Crl. A. No. 713 / 2018 09-05-2018 
Petitioner’s Advocate : K. Paari Vendhan 
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. V. Ramana, Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer 
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. V. Ramana 

45. Pramod Laxman Gudadhe Vs. Election Commission of India 

Representation of the People Act, 1951 - S. 151A - Time limit for filling vacancies - The command of Section 151A is to hold the election within a period of six months from the date of occurrence of the vacancy. 

Case Number : SLP (c) No. 9968 / 2018 09-05-2018 
Petitioner’s Advocate : Anagha S. Desai 
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 

46. Meenal Bhargava Vs. Naveen Sharma 

Family Law - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Even in respect of a decree passed by competent court of law forcing the spouse to join the company of the other and on failing to do so punishing in committing contempt of the court’s order, that too by awarding maximum civil imprisonment in law cannot be countenanced. 

Case Number : C. A. No. 1606 / 2018 09-05-2018 
Petitioner’s Advocate : Amit Pawan 
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. K. Sikri, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan 
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. K. Sikri 

47. Union of India Vs. Rina Devi 

Railways Act, 1989 - Section 124A - Whether presence of a body near the railway track is enough to maintain a claim. 

Case Number : C. A. No. 4945-004945 / 2018 09-05-2018 
Petitioner’s Advocate : Anil Katiyar 
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel, Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indu Malhotra 
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel 

48. Gurwinder Singh @ Sonu Vs. State of Punjab 

For bringing in operation of “Exception 4” to Section 300 IPC, it has to be established that the act was committed without premeditation, in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel without the offender having taken undue advantage and not having acted in a cruel or unusual manner. 

Case Number : Crl. A. No. 2301-2302 / 2014 08-05-2018 
Petitioner’s Advocate : Deepak Goel 
Respondent’s Advocate : Uttara Babbar 
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha 
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi 

49. M/s Geomysore Services (i) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Hutti Goldmines Co. Ltd. 

What is the role and power of the Central Government while dealing with the request of a State Government for reservation of lands for government companies or corporations owned and controlled by the State Government under section 17A (2) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act, 1957 ? 

Case Number : C. A. No. 2537 / 2017 08-05-2018 
Petitioner’s Advocate : Naveen Kumar 
Respondent’s Advocate : V. N. Raghupathy 
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta 
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta 


50. Ex Navy Direct Entry Artificers Asso. Vs. Union of India Ministry of Defence Represented By The Secretary 

For an Artificer to become entitled to pension, he is supposed to render minimum service of 15 years as per Regulation 78 of the Navy (Pension) Regulations, 1964. 

Case Number : C. A. No. 6785 / 2014 08-05-2018 
Petitioner’s Advocate : Ashwani Bhardwaj 
Respondent’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 

51. B. C. Singh (d) By Lrs. Vs. J. M. Utarid (d) By Lrs. 

Indian Succession Act, 1925 - This Act does not bar the succession of property of any Indian Christian by a person who is not an Indian national. There is no prohibition for succession of the property in India by a foreign national by inheritance. 

Case Number : C. A. No. 6935 / 2011 08-05-2018 
Petitioner’s Advocate : Sudarshan Singh Rawat 
Respondent’s Advocate : Varinder Kumar Sharma 
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer 
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer 

52. Basanti Devi (d) by Lrs. Vs. Rati Ram 

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 14(1) does not recognize the pre-existing right of a Hindu male. 

Case Number : C. A. No. 7919 / 2011 08-05-2018 
Petitioner’s Advocate : Ranbir Singh Yadav 
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer 
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. V. Ramana 

53. Lok Prahari Through Its General Secretary Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 

This writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India raises a challenge to the validity of Section 4(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Ministers (Salaries, Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1981, as amended in 2016. 

Case Number : W. P. (C) No. 864 / 2016 07-05-2018 
Petitioner’s Advocate : Petitioner-in-person 
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha 
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi 

54. United Air Travel Services Through Its Proprietor A. D. M. Anwar Khan Vs. Union of India Ministry of External Affairs Through Secretary 

A batch of writ petitions raises the issue of Private Tour Operators (‘PTOs’) who are, inter alia conducting the travel business for Hajj and Umrah being disqualified for grant of registration for the year 2016 for the Hajj pilgrimage. 

Case Number : W. P. (C) No. 631 / 2016 07-05-2018 
Petitioner’s Advocate : Sayid Marzook Bafaki 
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul 
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar 

55. Atcom Technologies Ltd. Vs. Y. A. Chunawala & Co. 

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order VIII Rule 1 - Written Statement - Condoning the Delay - Reason of the High Court that delay was condoned ‘by balancing the rights and equities’ is farfetched and, in the process, abnormal delay in filing the written statement is condoned without addressing the relevant factor, viz. whether the respondents had furnished proper and satisfactory explanation for such a delay. The approach of the High Court is clearly erroneous in law and cannot be countenanced. No doubt, the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are procedural in nature and, therefore, hand maid of justice. However, that would not mean that the defendant has right to take as much time as he wants in filing the written statement, without giving convincing and cogent reasons for delay and the High Court has to condone it mechanically. 

Case Number : C. A. No. 4266-4267 / 2018 07-05-2018 
Petitioner’s Advocate : E. C. Agrawala 
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. K. Sikri, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan 
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. K. Sikri 

56. Rojer Mathew Vs. South Indian Bank 

Restructuring of Tribunal System in the light of constitutional scheme as interpreted in decisions of this Court and the Expert Studies is the issue for consideration. 

Case Number : SLP (c) No. 15804 / 2017 07-05-2018 
Petitioner’s Advocate : Lakshmi N. Kaimal 
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel 

57. Ameet Lalchand Shah Vs. Rishabh Enterprises 

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - S. 8 - It is only where serious questions of fraud are involved, the arbitration can be refused. 

Case Number : C. A. No. 4690 / 2018 03-05-2018 
Petitioner’s Advocate : Kamini Jaiswal 
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi 
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi 

58. Rachit Sinha Vs. Union of India 

Postgraduate Medical Education (Amendment) Regulations, 2018 - Reduction of chances of admission does not entail in violation of any right. 

Case Number : W. P. (C) No. 357 / 2018 03-05-2018 
Petitioner’s Advocate : Amit Kumar 
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. A. Bobde, Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao 
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. A. Bobde 

59. Richal Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission 

The questions having been deleted from the answers, the question paper has to be treated as containing the question less the deleted questions. Redistribution of marks with regard to deleted questions cannot be said to be arbitrary or irrational. 

Case Number : C. A. No. 4695-4699 / 2018 03-05-2018 
Petitioner’s Advocate : Purushottam Sharma Tripathi 
Respondent’s Advocate : Surya Kant 
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. K. Sikri, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan 
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan 

60. M/s Eureka Builders Vs. Gulabchand Dead By Lrs 

A right in the property once extinguished by operation of law, it cannot be revived unless the law itself provides for its revival in a particular situation. 

Case Number : C. A. No. 4757-4760 / 2018 03-05-2018 
Petitioner’s Advocate : Rajeev Singh 
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. K. Agrawal, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre 
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre 

61. Raj KumarVs. State of Punjab 

Case Number : C.A. No. 4764 / 2018 03-05-2018 
Petitioner's Advocate : Archana Pathak Dave 
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar 
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph 

62. Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. M/s Narbheram Power and Steel Pvt Ltd 

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - S. 11 (6) - 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. 

Case Number : C. A. No. 2268 / 2018 02-05-2018 
Petitioner’s Advocate : Manjeet Chawla 
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 

63. Tularam Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 

Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 299, 300, 304 - Culpable Homicide - Ingredients of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC - offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC is set aside but convicted of an offence punishable under the second part of Section 304 of the IPC. 

Case Number : Crl. A. No. 663 / 2018 02-05-2018 
Petitioner’s Advocate : Vanita Mehta 
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta 
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur 

64. State of Kerala Vs. Mythri Vidya Bhavan English Medium School 

The fundamental right to free and compulsory education to all children between the age of 6 and 14 years postulates good quality education and not just education for the sake of providing education. 

Case Number : SLP (c) No. 18475-18476 / 2013 02-05-2018 
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

65. Commnr. of Income Tax, Chennai Vs. M/s. S. Ajit Kumar Thr. Its Managing Director 

Material found in the course of survey in the premises of the builder could be used in Block Assessment of the assessee? 

Case Number : C. A. No. 10164 / 2010 02-05-2018 
Petitioner’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 

66. Murugan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu 

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 364 & 302/34 - A theory of "accused last seen in the company of the deceased" is a strong circumstance against the accused while appreciating the circumstantial evidence. 

Case Number : Crl. A. No. 1498 / 2010 02-05-2018 
Petitioner’s Advocate : Gp. Capt. Karan Singh Bhati 
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 Abhay Manohar Sapre 

67. Prem Giri Vs. State of Rajasthan 

Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 143, 341, 323, 308 332 & 353 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - S. 438 - Court remanded the case to the High Court because it was noticed that the High Court while dismissing the application had not assigned any reason in support of the dismissal. 

Case Number : Crl. A. No. 662 / 2018 02-05-2018 
Petitioner’s Advocate : Pratibha 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 

68. Purushottam Vs. Anil 

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - S. 8 - An incorrect reference or recital regarding applicability of 1940 Act would not render the entire arbitration agreement invalid. 

Case Number : C. A. No. 4664 / 2018 02-05-2018 
Petitioner’s Advocate : Chirag M. Shroff 
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit 
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra 

69. Sarika Vs. Administrator, Mahakaleshwar Mandir Committee, Ujjain (MP) 

Mahakaleshwar Jyotirlingam has so much importance for spiritual and other gains, there is a constitutional duty to protect it as envisaged in Article 25, Art. 26 read with Article 49, at the same time there is a fundamental duty under Article 51A of the Constitution to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood as provided in Article 51A and to value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture. 

Case Number : C. A. No. 4676 / 2018 02-05-2018 
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit 
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra 

70. Telangana Housing Board Vs. Azamunisa Begum (died) Thru Lrs. 

Whether a ‘clerical error’ can be corrected “at any time” or only within a reasonable time. 

Case Number : C. A. No. 4632-004638 / 2018 01-05-2018 
Petitioner’s Advocate : T. V. Ratnam 
Respondent’s Advocate : R. V. Kameshwaran 
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta 
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur 

71. Union of India Vs. Hardy Exploration and Production (India) Inc. 

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - S. 34 - When the arbitration agreement specify the “venue” for holding the arbitration sittings by the arbitrators but does not specify the “seat”, then on what basis and by which principle, the parties have to decide the place of “seat” which has a material bearing for determining the applicability of laws of a particular country for deciding the post award arbitration proceedings - Referred to Larger Bench. 

Case Number : C. A. No. 4628 / 2018 01-05-2018 
Petitioner’s Advocate : K. R. Sasiprabhu 
Respondent’s Advocate : E. C. Agrawala 
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre 

72. Chandra Bhawan Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 

Penal Code, 1860 - S. 302/34 - When the incident admittedly occurred in their house, the accused were required to explain the circumstances in which S died. They, however, failed to give any explanation. 

Case Number : Crl. A. No. 654 / 2018 01-05-2018 
Petitioner’s Advocate : Shekhar Prit Jha 
Respondent’s Advocate : Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad 
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. K. Agrawal, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre 
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre 

73. Satpal Vs. State of Haryana 

If there be any doubt or break in the link of chain of circumstances, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused. 

Case Number : Crl. A. No. 1892 / 2017 01-05-2018 
Petitioner’s Advocate : Devendra Singh 
Respondent’s Advocate : Monika Gusain 
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar 
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph 

74. Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India 

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - The Chief Justices of the High Courts are requested to constitute a Committee of three Judges to regulate and monitor the progress of the trials under the POCSO Act. 

Case Number : W. P. (C) No. 76 / 2018 01-05-2018 
Petitioner’s Advocate : Kedar Nath Tripathy 
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 


75. Dilawar Vs. State of Haryana 

Need to lay down timelines for completing investigation with a view to give effect to the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution. 

Case Number : MA- 267 / 2017 01-05-2018 
Petitioner’s Advocate : Mukesh Kumar Maroria 
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel

Click to comment
 
Example HTML page