16 Important Supreme Court of India Judgments Pronounced Today [Tuesday, August 21, 2018]

1. Shailesh Manubhai Parmar v. Election Commission of India through the Chief Election Commissioner 


Election - Applicability of NOTA to the Rajya Sabha elections - Option of NOTA may serve as an elixir in direct elections but in respect of the election to the Council of States which is a different one as discussed above, it would not only undermine the purity of democracy but also serve the Satan of defection and corruption. 33 28. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the writ petition is allowed and the circulars issued by the Election Commission, the first respondent herein, introducing NOTA in respect of elections to the Council of States are hereby quashed. 



Case Number : W. P. (C) No. 631 of 2017 21-08-2018; Petitioner's Advocate : Farrukh Rasheed; 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 

2. M/s. Sonell Clocks and Gifts Ltd. v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 


Waiver is an intentional relinquishment of a right. It must involve conscious abandonment of an existing legal right, advantage, benefit, claim or privilege, which except for such a waiver, a party could have enjoyed. It is an agreement not to assert a right. To invoke the principle of waiver, the person who is said to have waived must be fully informed as to his rights and with full knowledge about the same, he intentionally abandons them. There must be a specific plea of waiver, much less of abandonment of a right by the opposite party. 

Case Number : C. A. No. 1217 - 1218 of 2017 21-08-2018; Petitioner's Advocate : Ajit 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 Mr. Justice A. M. Khanwilkar 

3. Samir Narain Bhojwani v. M/s Aurora Properties and Investments 


Interim Mandatory Injunction - an interim mandatory injunction is not a remedy that is easily granted. It is an order that is passed only in circumstances which are clear and the prima facie material clearly justify a finding that the status quo has been altered by one of the parties to the litigation and the interests of justice demanded that the status quo ante be restored by way of an interim mandatory injunction. 

Case Number : C.A. No. 7079 of 2018 21-08-2018; Petitioner's Advocate : E. C. Agrawala; 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. 

4. Suman Devi v. Manisha Devi 


Panchayati Raj Act 1994 (Haryana) - Section 176 - Determination of validity of election enquiry by judge and procedure - Section 176 (1) clearly specifies a period of 30 days from the date of the declaration of the results of the election within which an election petition has to be filed. There is no provision for condoning delay or for extending the period of limitation. 

Case Number : C.A. No. 8337 of 2018 21-08-2018; Petitioner's Advocate : Kaveeta Wadia; 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 

5. M/s Kohinoor Transporters v. The State of Uttar Pradesh 


Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - S. 47 - Questions to be determined by the Court executing decree - High Court has acted in manifest excess of its jurisdiction while directing the appointment of a Chartered Accountant for the purpose of determining as to whether the decretal debt is to be marked as satisfied. The issue as to whether the decree has been discharged or satisfied has to be determined by the Executing Court under Section 47 of the CPC. The Executing Court must execute the decree as it stands without adding anything to it - The High Court has acted in excess of jurisdiction by directing the appointment of a Chartered Accountant, particularly at the execution stage. 

Case Number : C.A. No. 8338 of 2018 21-08-2018; Petitioner's Advocate : Mukul Kumar; 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 

6. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hyundai Engineering And Construction Co. Ltd. 


Insurance Policy - Arbitration Clause - An arbitration clause would enliven or invigorate only if the insurer admits or accepts its liability under or in respect of the concerned policy. 

Case Number : C.A. No. 8146 of 2018 21-08-2018; Petitioner's Advocate : Mohit Paul; 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 

7. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Achal Singh 


Service Law - Voluntary Retirement - When services are required, denial of voluntary retirement is permissible. 

Case Number : C.A. No. 8421 of 2018 21-08-2018; Petitioner's Advocate : Ankur Prakash; Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra, Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indira Banerjee; Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra 

8. Suresh v. State of Haryana 


Criminal Law - Acquittal - Every acquittal in a criminal case has to be taken with some seriousness by the investigating and prosecuting authorities. 

Case Number : Crl. A. No. 1445-1446 of 2012 21-08-2018; Petitioner's Advocate : Rishi Malhotra; Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. V. Ramana, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar; Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. V. Ramana 

9. Sham Singh v. State of Haryana 


Criminal Trial - Rape - Trial Court and the High Court have convicted the accused merely on conjectures and surmises. The Courts have come to the conclusion based on assumptions and not on legally acceptable evidence, but such assumptions were not well founded, inasmuch as such assumptions are not corroborated by any reliable evidence. Medical evidence does not support the case of the prosecution relating to offence of rape 

Case Number : Crl. A. No. 544 of 2018 21-08-2018; Petitioner's Advocate : Deepak Goel; Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. V. Ramana, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar; Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. V. Ramana 

10. Ram Pratap v. Anand Kanwar 


Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 - Section 13 - Eviction of Tenant - It is evident from Section 13(3) of the Rent Act that the use of the word 'shall' puts a mandatory obligation on the court to fix provisional rent within three months of the filing of the written statement but before framing of the issues. The language of the Section is mandatory and places a duty on the court to determine the provisional rent irrespective of any application or not. If the rent so determined by the court is paid by the tenant as provided under Section 13(4), no decree for eviction of the tenant can be passed on the ground of default under Section 13(1)(a) in view of Section 13(6) of the Act. It is thus clear that unless the determination under Section 13(3) takes place, Section 13(6) cannot be complied with and a valuable right given to a tenant would be lost. The High Court has rightly held Section 13(3) of the Act to be mandatory. 

Case Number : C.A. No. 8504 of 2018 21-08-2018; Petitioner's Advocate : Astha Prasad; 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 S. Abdul Nazeer 

11. Anant Sidheshwar Dukre v. Pratap Zhamnnappa Lamzane 


Motor Accidents - Injuries and Disablements - a person must not only be compensated for his physical injury, but also for the non-pecuniary losses which he has suffered due to the injury. The Claimant is entitled to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, and enjoy those things and amenities which he would have enjoyed, but for the injuries. 

Case Number : C.A. No. 8420 of 2018 21-08-2018; Petitioner's Advocate : Devvrat; Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indu Malhotra; Judgment By : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indu Malhotra 

12. Swapna Mohanty v. State of Odisha 


Civil Law - Necessary / Proper Party - A person whose presence before a forum may be necessary in order to enable it effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the dispute is a necessary party. A necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively. A proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made, but whose presence is necessary for complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceedings. 

Case Number : C.A. No. 8425 of 2018 21-08-2018; Petitioner's Advocate : Suresh Chandra Tripathy; Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. A. Bobde, Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao; Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. A. Bobde 

13. K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana 


Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 498 A, 120 B, 420 & 365 - Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out. 

Case Number : Crl. A. No. 1045 of 2018 21-08-2018; Petitioner's Advocate : Sridhar Potaraju; 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. State of Tamil Nadu v. Promod Kumar IPS 


All India Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 - Rules 6 & 8 - Procedure for imposing major penalties - A major penalty cannot be imposed except after holding an enquiry- disciplinary authority shall “draw up or caused to be drawn up” the substance of the imputation of misconduct or misbehavior into definite and distinct article of charge - an opportunity to be given to the delinquent to submit his explanation- the authority to institute proceedings and to impose penalty on a member of All India Service is the State Government, if he is serving in connection with the affairs of the State. 

Case Number : C.A. No. 8427-8428 of 2018 21-08-2018; Petitioner's Advocate : K. V. Vijayakumar; Respondent's Advocate : Jayant Mohan; Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. A. Bobde, Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao; Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. A. Bobde 

15. Tirumala Medical Academy Educational Society v. Union of India 


Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 - Section 10 A (3) (a) and 10 (4) - Letter of permission for establishing a new dental college for the academic year 2018-2019 - the schedule prescribed by the Dental Council of India is binding on all concerned and should not be ordinarily relaxed - Any direction given in this case would necessarily involve relaxation of the time lines mentioned in the schedule - Petitioners are also responsible for the delay caused in consideration of their proposal to start a new dental college - Initially, they did not furnish the required information regarding the land and buildings which resulted in the recommendation of disapproval of the scheme proposed by them - If they complied with the direction for submission of the relevant documents, the inspection of the college would have been conducted as scheduled in December, 2017 itself - Further delay was caused due to the order passed in the Writ Petition - settlement between the Petitioners and Vels Education Society regarding the affiliation to the Government Medical College and Hospital was reached only last week - not inclined to give any direction to consider the proposal to start a new dental college for this academic session by relaxing the schedule issued by the Dental Council of India. 

Case Number : W. P. (C) No. 779 of 2018 21-08-2018; Petitioner's Advocate : Praseena Elizabeth Joseph; Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. A. Bobde, Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao; Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. A. Bobde 

16. Medical Council of India v. Principal KMCT Medical College 


Medical Council of India Act, 1956 - Section 11(2) - Granting Recognition of the Course - Power to conduct a second inspection - There is no restriction in conducting a second inspection limiting it only in respect of the deficiencies pointed out earlier - decision taken by the Union of India on the basis of a recommendation of an expert body regarding the inadequacy of facilities in medical colleges cannot be interfered with lightly - Interference is permissible only when the colleges demonstrate jurisdictional errors, ex facie perversity or mala fide. 

Case Number : C.A. No. 8429 of 2018 21-08-2018; Petitioner's Advocate : Gaurav Sharma; Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. A. Bobde, Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao; Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. A. Bobde

2 comments: