6 Important Supreme Court of India Judgments Pronounced Today [Friday August 10, 2018]

1. M/s. Goel Ganga Developers India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India


Review - Judicial discipline, judicial traditions and consistency in pronouncements require that the Bench which heard the matter originally should hear the review petition unless it is virtually impractical for the original Bench to hear the matter, or where the members of the original Bench recuse.

Case Number : C.A. No. 10854 of 2016 10-08-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : Venkita Subramoniam T. R
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur, Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta

2. Corporation of Madras v. M. Parthasarathy


Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - O. 41 R. 27 -  Additional Evidence - the first Appellate Court had two options, first it could have either set aside the entire judgment/decree of the Trial Court by taking recourse to the provisions of Order 41 Rule 23­A of the Code and remanded the case to the Trial Court for re­trial in the suits so as to enable the parties to adduce oral evidence to prove the additional evidence in accordance with law or second, it had an option to invoke powers under Order 41 Rule 25 of the Code by retaining the appeals to itself and remitting the case to the Trial Court for limited trial on particular issues arising in the case in the light of additional evidence which was taken on record and invite findings of the Trial Court on such limited issues to enable the first Appellate Court to decide the appeals on merits.

Case Number : C.A. No. 3033 of 2006 10-08-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : M. Yogesh Kanna
Respondent's Advocate : R. Chandrachud
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre


3. P.K. Narayanan Raja v. Ambika


Civil Law - It would be just and proper that all properties belonging to or claim to belonging to the family or/and its members though denied by the parties against each other should be made subject matter of one civil suit rather than two civil suits.

Case Number : C.A. No. 561 of 2008 10-08-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : V. Ramasubramanian
Respondent's Advocate : M.A. Chinnasamy
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre

4. K.S. Rajan (dead) Through L. Rs. v. State of Kerala


Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4 - Whether the determination made by the Courts below in relation to “wet land” and “chira land” is just and proper or it requires any modification by way of enhancement as claimed by the landowners in these appeals.

Case Number : C.A. No. 6281-6282 of 2009 10-08-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : Romy Chacko
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre

5. Vilas Dinkar Bhat v. State of Maharashtra


Evidence Law - Documentary Evidence - When a party relies upon any evidence, whether it is oral or documentary, in support of his case, the Court / Committee / Authority, as the case may be, and especially the original Court is under an obligation to apply its mind to the entire documentary evidence on which the party has placed reliance for proving his case and record its reasoned findings whether accepting the evidence or rejecting it. What is important is the consideration of entire evidence adduced by the parties in accordance with law while deciding the case.

Case Number : C.A. No. 2095 of 2007 10-08-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : Sudhanshu S. Choudhari
Respondent's Advocate : Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre

6. Ved Pal (d) Tr. Lrs. v. Prem Devi (d) Tr. Lrs.


Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 23 Rule 3­A - the High Court disposed of the second appeal in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties and decreed the suit - Legislative intent which does not allow the parties to take recourse to these legal remedies to challenge the compromise once it is arrived at in the suit / appeal - Only exception being if the challenge is founded on the ground of fraud committed by the parties in obtaining any judicial orders, the suit, in appropriate case, may lie - Since the second appeal was disposed of affecting the rights of the parties in the light of compromise, the proper Forum to reexamine the issue is the High Court which disposed of the second appeal rather than any other Forum to examine the issue at this stage - the High Court did not go into the details in the proceedings filed by the appellants in its correct perspective.

Case Number : C. A. No. 8353 of 2014 10-08-2018
Petitioner's Advocate : Manoj Swarup
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre
Share:

No comments:

Post a Comment