7 Important Supreme Court Judgments January 4, 2019

1. Ku. Bhawana v. State of Maharashtra

Service Law - Seniority - Assistant Teacher in Secondary School - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 - Rules 2 (j), 2 (k), 6, 12(3) - “trained graduate” - “trained teacher” - Qualification of the Teachers - Seniority List - Guidelines for fixation of seniority of teachers in the primary schools - Guidelines for fixation of seniority of teachers in the secondary schools Junior Colleges of Education and Junior College classes attached to secondary schools and Senior Colleges.

The Scheme of the Rules, 1981 of which reference has been made cl terms of the guidelines laid down for fixation of seniority of teachers in Schedule ‘F’ annexed to Rule 12 of Rules, 1981. As regards fixation of seniority in the primary school is concerned, it is based on the date of joining service and continuance officiation. At the same time, fixation of seniority in the secondary schools, junior colleges of education and junior college classes attached to secondary schools and senior colleges, it has been graded into separate categories commencing from A­H, and as regards category ‘A and B’ are concerned, the seniority is determined on the basis of the date of appointment to the respective posts and those who are holders of various qualifications falling in categories C to H, their seniority is determined on the basis of total service rendered by the person in a particular cadre in school or junior college of education for the purpose of seniority and for promotion as indicated under Note 5, the rule making authority was conscious of this fact giving preference in descending order to the holders of category ‘C, D, E or F’, as the case may be, as indicated in Note 4. As a consequence thereof, a person who is a member of category ‘F’ or ‘G’, as the case may be, would in no manner can rank senior to the teaching staff who is member of category ‘C’, ‘D’ or ‘E’ based on their continuous service rendered in the category to which the person belongs. [Para 9]

Citations : AIR 2019 SC 238 : JT 2019 (1) SC 143 : 2019 (1) SCALE 148
Case Number : C.A. No. 11934 of 2018 04-01-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Pawanshree Agrawal
Respondent's Advocate : Nitin Bhardwaj
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi

2. Badri Vishal Pandey v. Rajesh Mittal

Contempt of Court - The contempt jurisdiction cannot be invoked on the basis of impressions, when the order of the Court does not contain any direction - The contempt would be made out when there is willful disobedience to the orders of this Court.

Citations : AIR 2019 SC 289 : 2019 (1) SCALE 155
Case Number : Conmt. Pet. (C) No. 817 of 2018 04-01-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Prashant Bhushan
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta

3. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kalyan Singh

Criminal P.C. 1973 - S. 482 - Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 307, 294 r/w. 34 - High Court has committed a grave error in quashing the criminal proceedings for the offences under Sections 307, 294 read with Section 34 of the IPC solely on the ground that the original Complainant and the accused have settled the dispute - Despite any settlement between the Complainant on the one hand and the accused on the other, the criminal proceedings for the offences under Section 307 of the IPC cannot be quashed, as the offence under Section 307 is a non-­compoundable offence.

Citations : AIR 2019 SC 312 : JT 2019 (1) SC 150 : 2019 (1) SCALE 165
Case Number : Crl.A. No. 14 of 2019 04-01-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : C.D. Singh
Respondent's Advocate : Malini Poduval
Bench : Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. R. Shah
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah

4. Champa Lal Dhakar v. Naval Singh Rajput

Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 147, 148, 451, 325 / 149, 307 / 149, 294 / 149 & 506 / 149 - Attempt to murder - Considering the material/evidence on record and the medical certificate and the injuries sustained by the complainant, it cannot be said that the intention of the accused was to cause death of the complainant. Therefore, as rightly observed by the High Court, a charge under Section 325/149 ought to have been framed. Therefore, the High Court has not committed any error in setting aside the order passed by the trial Court insofar as framing the charge under Section 307 of the IPC.

Citations : AIR 2019 SC 314 : JT 2019 (1) SC 43 : 2019 (1) SCALE 163
Case Number : Crl.A. No. 1931 of 2009 04-01-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Anil Shrivastav
Respondent's Advocate : Mridula Ray Bharadwaj
Bench : Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah

5. M/s Mdda Ramky Isbt Ltd. v. Ombir Singh Tomar

Contempt of Court - Contempt is a matter between the Court and the alleged contemnor who is alleged to have violated the orders of the Court.

Citations : 2019 (1) RCR (Criminal) 837
Case Number : Conmt. Pet. (c) No. 1624 of 2017 04-01-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Shankar Divate
Bench : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi, Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indira Banerjee
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi

6. Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v. Central Bureau of Investigation

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 477A, 471, 468, 420 and 120B - The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 - Ss. 5(1)(c)(d) r/w. 5(2).

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 311 - Power to summon material witness, or examine person present - Where the prosecution evidence has been closed long back and the reasons for non-examination of the witness earlier is not satisfactory, the summoning of the witness at belated stage would cause great prejudice to the accused and should not be allowed. Similarly, the court should not encourage the filing of successive applications for recall of a witness under this provision.

The first part of this Section which is permissive gives purely discretionary authority to the criminal court and enables it at any stage of inquiry, trial or other proceedings under the Code to act in one of the three ways, namely, (i) to summon any person as a witness; or (ii) to examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness; or (iii) to recall and re-examine any person already examined. The second part, which is mandatory, imposes an obligation on the court (i) to summon and examine or (ii) to recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case. It is well settled that the power conferred under Section 311 should be invoked by the court only to meet the ends of justice. The power is to be exercised only for strong and valid reasons and it should be exercised with great caution and circumspection. The court has vide power under this Section to even recall witnesses for reexamination or further examination, necessary in the interest of justice, but the same has to be exercised after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of each case. The power under this provision shall not be exercised if the court is of the view that the application has been filed as an abuse of the process of law.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the case was registered in the year 1983. 29 prosecution witnesses have already been examined. The application of the prosecution to examine Mr. H.S. Tuteja was allowed in the year 2004. However, prosecution has failed to keep 6 him in court for his examination. Thereafter, multiple applications have been filed to summon him and all of them have been allowed. However, the prosecution has failed to procure his attendance in the court. On 28.07.2011 the High Court of Calcutta gave the prosecution a last opportunity to procure his attendance and declared that in case of failure on the part of the CBI to procure the attendance of witnesses and get them examined, the Trial Court will proceed further with the trial without granting any further adjournment to the CBI. Even thereafter, the applications filed by the CBI have been allowed. On 15.09.2014, yet again, the High Court in a criminal revision application observed that since the trial is pending for a long time, steps must be taken by the trial court to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months. Even thereafter, the trial court has allowed the application filed by the prosecution for summoning Mr. H.S. Tuteja, which order has been confirmed by the High Court. In our view, the High Court ought to have accepted the appeal and rejected the application of the prosecution for summoning the witness, Mr. H.S. Tuteja. In the result, the appeal succeeds and it is accordingly allowed. The orders of the High Court dated 04.05.2017, as well as of the Trial Court dated 05.12.2014 are hereby quashed and the application filed by the Prosecutor for summoning Mr. H.S. Tuteja is hereby dismissed.

Citations : 2019 (2) SCALE 654
Case Number : Crl.A. No. 15 of 2019 04-01-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri, Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer

7. Madhav Hari Joshi v. Divisional Manager, LIC of India

Consumer Law - Insurance - LIC had already received a decision to complete the proposal with extra premium. Admittedly, even the extra premium of Rs.10,000/- was paid by the appellant as part of his payment of Rs.1,75,000/-. The remaining formalities that were required to be observed were to be fulfilled by the Development Officer and not by the appellant. LIC retained the moneys of the appellant for a period of nearly five years. No effort was made to refund the moneys. In this view of the matter, a deficiency of service was clearly established.

Consumer Law - Insurance - the plan for which he had applied was an equity based market plan and, hence, he has lost the benefit of an escalation in his investment value. The plan in question was not exclusively an insurance based product. By being linked to the equity market, it had an investment element. LIC held on to the moneys of the appellant wrongfully for five years. Its omission to refund has deprived the appellant of the use of his moneys. Hence, a mere direction for the payment of interest on the principal sum will not provide sufficient redress. The ends of justice would be met, if the direction, which has been issued by the National Commission, is modified and an additional amount of Rs.2,00,000/- is directed to be paid towards all the claims, demands and outstandings, including litigation expenses.

Citations : 2019 (1) RCR (Civil) 680 : 2019 (1) Scale 336
Case Number : C.A. No. 49 of 2019 04-01-2019
Bench : Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta
Judgement By: Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Subodh S. Patil, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. R. Chandrachud, AOR Mr. Karan Sharma, Adv.
Previous Post Next Post