Ads 720 x 90

7 Important Supreme Court Judgments Published in All India Reporter October 2018

1. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 2018 SC 5194

Constitution of India - Article 142 - Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 - Rule 115 (21) - Whether Bharat Stage IV (BS­IV) compliant vehicles should be permitted to be sold in India after 31.03.2020 - Held, No motor vehicle conforming to the emission standard Bharat Stage­ IV shall be sold or registered in the entire country with effect from 01.04.2020.

2. M. Siddiq (Dead) Through Lrs. v. Mahant Suresh Das, AIR 2018 SC 5134

Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993 - No case has been made out to refer the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Ismail Faruqui case (supra) for reconsideration.

3. Kamala v. M.R. Mohan Kumar, AIR 2018 SC 5128

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 125 - Unlike matrimonial proceedings where strict proof of marriage is essential, in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., such strict standard of proof is not necessary as it is summary in nature meant to prevent vagrancy.

4. Rajendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2018 SC 5127

Penal Code, 1860 - S. 302 - Arms Act, 1959 - Ss. 25 & 27 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Remission - the appellant has so far undergone more than 14 years of jail sentence and he still remains in Jail undergoing his sentence - if that were the case then the State can be directed to consider the appellant's case for his remission in terms of the relevant provisions of the Cr.P.C. read with Rules - the appellant is eligible for his release by the State in terms of the Rules in accordance with law depending upon a case made out by him. The State can always pass appropriate orders on appellant's release provided a case to that effect as provided in the Rules is made out.

5. S. Nambi Narayanan v. Siby Mathews, AIR 2018 SC 5112

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 21 - Fundamental Right - Unnecessary Arrest - Reputation of an individual is an insegregable facet of his right to life with dignity. (Paras 35-36)

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 21 - Fundamental Right - Unnecessary arrest - Public Law Remedy - Compensation - ISRO Spy Case – Harassment and Mental Torture - Entire prosecution initiated by State police found to be malicious - The criminal law was set in motion without any basis by the police - Liberty and dignity were jeopardized - Public law remedy requires grant of compensation.(Para 31 & 39)

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 21 - Unnecessary Arrest - Malicious prosecution initiated by State police - There has been some argument that there has been no complaint with regard to custodial torture. When such an argument is advanced, the concept of torture is viewed from a narrow perspective. Emphasis has been laid on mental agony when a person is confined within the four walls of a police station or lock up. There may not be infliction of physical pain but definitely there is mental torment. (Paras 32-33)

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 21 - Unnecessary Arrest - Malicious prosecution initiated by State police - Appellant, a successful scientist having national reputation, has been compelled to undergo immense humiliation. The lackadaisical attitude of the State police to arrest anyone and put him in police custody has made the appellant to suffer the ignominy. The dignity of a person gets shocked when psycho-pathological treatment is meted out to him. A human being cries for justice when he feels that the insensible act has crucified his self-respect. That warrants grant of compensation under the public law remedy. (Para 37)

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 21 - Unnecessary arrest and malicious prosecution - Civil suit filed for compensation - Filing of civil suit will not debar the constitutional court from granting compensation by taking recourse to public law. (Paras 37, 39)

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 21 - Unnecessary arrest and malicious prosecution - A Committee should be constituted to take appropriate steps against the erring officials - A Committee headed by Justice D.K. Jain to be constituted for aforesaid purpose. (Para 40)

View Judgment :

6. Wockhardt v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals, AIR 2018 SC 5106

Trademark - Infringement and Passing off - the Plaintiff/Respondent has a trade mark called “CHYMORAL” and “CHYMORAL FORTE”, which is a drug administered post-surgically for swellings that may arise and/or wounds that may arise. It is interesting to note that the expression “CHYMO” comes from the generic name of the drug which is CHYMOTRYPSIN-TRYPSIN - In 2014, the appellant acquired the trademark with full notice of Respondent No. 1’s registration and use of the trademark “CHYMTRAL” - the Appellant has started to sell the same product under a new trade name, namely, ‘Chymowok’ - the remaining stock of material has been disposed of under the trade name “CHYMTRAL”, and that material manufactured after the Division Bench judgment is not being sold under the said trade name despite the stay granted in favour of the Appellant - Seeing the sales figures of ‘Chymowok’ from December, 2017 till August, 2018 and the fact that the Appellant’s sales under the “new” trade name are substantial, we do not think that we should exercise our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India in favour of the Appellant, seeing that the balance of convenience is well served by the judgment under appeal. The Appeal is, therefore, rejected.

7. Maqbool v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2018 SC 5101

Acid Attach - It is not the percentage or gravity of injury, which makes the difference. Be it simple or grievous, if the injury falls under the specified types under Section 326A on account of use of acid, the offence under Section 326A is attracted. Section 326B would be attracted in case the requirements specified are met on an attempted acid attack.

Related Posts

Subscribe Our Newsletter