14 Important Supreme Court of India Judgments Pronounced Today [Monday, January 7, 2019]

1. Jagdish Chand v. State of Haryana

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 304­B and 498­A - Admittedly, death in the instant case took place within seven years of the marriage which was solemnised on 19.4.1988 and the incident of death had occurred on 7.12.1994. Though the defence had tried to prove otherwise, namely, that death had occurred beyond seven years of marriage, no concrete evidence in this regard has been forthcoming. Demands for dowry by the accused ­appellants as well as the husband and ill­treatment/cruelty on failure to meet the said demands is evident from the evidence of PW­6. From the evidence of PW­1, it is clear that the death was on account of burn injuries suffered by the deceased which injuries were caused by use of kerosene. In the light of the aforesaid evidence, this Court has no hesitation in holding that all the three ingredients necessary to draw the presumption of commission of the offence under Section 304­ B IPC have been proved and established by the prosecution. Consequently, the presumption under Section 113­B of the Indian Evidence Act has to be drawn against the accused and in the absence of any defence evidence to rebut the same, the Court has to hold the accused guilty of the offence under Section 304­B IPC. On the basis of the same consideration, the offence under Section 498­A must also be held to be proved against the accused persons.

Petitioner's Advocate : Rahul Gupta
Respondent's Advocate : Monika Gusain
Bench : Hon'ble The Chief Justice, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul
Judgment By : Hon'ble The Chief Justice


2. Mahadevappa v. State of Karnataka Tr. Pub. Prosecutor

Judicial Remarks - these disparaging remarks/strictures coupled with the directions of how one should behave and pass orders was unnecessary in the facts of this case, and nor they were germane for deciding the lis between the parties. Such remarks/strictures, therefore, should not have been made. They are accordingly expunged and stand deleted from the impugned order.

Petitioner's Advocate : E.R. Sumathy
Respondent's Advocate : Anitha Shenoy
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Subhash Reddy
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre

3. Kamal Kumar v. Premlata Joshi

Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Sections 16 (c), 20, 21, 22, 23 - the grant of relief of specific performance is a discretionary and equitable relief. The material questions, which are required to be gone into for grant of the relief of specific performance, are First, whether there exists a valid and concluded contract between the parties for sale/purchase of the suit property; Second, whether the plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform his part of contract and whether he is still ready and willing to perform his part as mentioned in the contract; Third, whether the plaintiff has, in fact, performed his part of the contract and, if so, how and to what extent and in what manner he has performed and whether such performance was in conformity with the terms of the contract; Fourth, whether it will be equitable to grant the relief of specific performance to the plaintiff against the defendant in relation to suit property or it will cause any kind of hardship to the defendant and, if so, how and in what manner and the extent if such relief is eventually granted to the plaintiff; and lastly, whether the plaintiff is entitled for grant of any other alternative relief, namely, refund of earnest money etc. and, if so, on what grounds. These requirements have to be properly pleaded by the parties in their respective pleadings and proved with the aid of evidence in accordance with law. It is only then the Court is entitled to exercise its discretion and accordingly grant or refuse the relief of specific performance depending upon the case made out by the parties on facts.

Petitioner's Advocate : Navin Prakash
Respondent's Advocate : Niraj Sharma
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Subhash Reddy
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre

4. State of Rajasthan v. Gram Vikas Samiti, Shivdaspura

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Second Appeal - who is the owner of the land and who is in its possession, whether the plaintiff as claimed was able to prove their title over the suit land to the exclusion of the rights of the State and, if so, on what basis and whether his possession if proved, is legal or not, etc. requires elaborate discussion. It should have been adjudicated in the light of legal principle applicable to the case, pleadings and evidence. It is for these reasons, the case needs to be remanded to the High Court for deciding of the Second Appeal afresh on all such questions which do arise in the case but were not decided much less in accordance with law.

Petitioner's Advocate : Ajay Choudhary
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Subhash Reddy
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre

5. Birla Institute of Technology v. State of Jharkhand

Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - Whether “Teacher” could be regarded as an “employee” under Section 2(e) of the Act and, if so, whether he/she is entitled to claim gratuity amount from his employer in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

Petitioner's Advocate : N. Annapoorani
Respondent's Advocate : Sunil Roy
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Subhash Reddy
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre

6. Deputy Executive Engineer v. Kuberbhai Kanjibhai

Labour Law - the respondent was held to have worked as daily wager or muster role employee hardly for a few years - no right to claim regularization & continue as daily wager - the dispute was raised by the workman before the Labour Court almost after 15 years of his alleged termination - it would be just, proper and reasonable to award lump sum monetary compensation to the respondent in full and final satisfaction of his claim of re­instatement and other consequential benefits.

Petitioner's Advocate : Hemantika Wahi
Respondent's Advocate : Aniruddha P. Mayee
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Subhash Reddy
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre

7. Ragini Sinha v. State of Bihar

Minimum Wages Act, 1948 - the authority has the power under the Act to impose the penalty, once the breaches alleged against the employer are proved.

Petitioner's Advocate : Vivek Singh
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Subhash Reddy
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre

8. Sushil Thomas Abraham v. M/s Skyline Build. Thru. Its Partner

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 33 Rule 1 & Order 44 Rule 1 - Appeal - “indigent person” - the dismissal of application made under Order 33 Rule 1 of the Code by the Trial Court in the earlier round of litigation is not a bar against the plaintiff to file an application/appeal under Order 44 Rule 1 of the Code before the Appellate Court.

Petitioner's Advocate : Prakash Ranjan Nayak
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Subhash Reddy
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre

9. Punjab Financial Corporation v. M/s Paulbro Leathers Pvt. Ltd.

Settlement - It was necessary for the High Court to record a categorical finding on the issue as to how and on what basis the respondent has complied with the terms of settlement and has thus discharged its entire liability. It was not done - accordingly allow the appeals, set aside both the orders passed by the High Court, restore the writ petition to its original number and request the High Court to decide the writ petition filed by the respondent afresh on merits in accordance with law.

Petitioner's Advocate : Jagjit Singh Chhabra
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Subhash Reddy
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre

10. Digi Cable Network (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India

Cable Television Network (Amendment) Rules, 2012 - Rule 11C - Registration as multi­system operator - grant of permission is subject to issue of security clearance from the Central Government. Since the grant of permission was subject to obtaining of the security clearance from the concerned Ministry, the competent authority was justified in cancelling the conditional permission for want of security clearance.

Petitioner's Advocate : Jay Savla
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Subhash Reddy
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre

11. State of Uttarakhand v. Raj Kumar

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - the respondent claimed to have worked as daily wager hardly for a period of one year or so in PWD of the State - he had no right to claim regularization - he had no right to continue as daily wager - the dispute was raised by the workman almost after 25 years of the alleged termination before the Labour Court - it would be just, proper and reasonable to award lump sum monetary compensation to the respondent in full and final satisfaction of his claim of re­instatement and other consequential benefits by taking recourse to the powers under Section 11­A of the Act

Petitioner's Advocate : Vishwa Pal Singh
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Subhash Reddy
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre

12. Manish S. Pardasani v. Inspector State Excise

Judiciary - What should be the role of the higher judiciary in making adverse remarks and passing strictures against the judicial/administrative authorities, whose order/action is under challenge - the higher judiciary must avoid as far as possible from making any disparaging harsh remarks and strictures against any judicial/administrative officer while examining their action/order impugned in the judicial proceedings.

Petitioner's Advocate : V.D. Khanna
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Subhash Reddy
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre

13. Monu v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420, 498A, 323, 376, 506 - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections 3 and 4 - the Single Judge ought to have first set out the brief facts of the case with a view to understand the factual matrix and then should have examined the challenge made to the proceedings in the light of the principles of law on the question involved with a view to record the findings on the grounds urged by the appellant as to whether any case for interference therein is made out or not - the aforementioned exercise was not done by the High Court while passing an unreasoned impugned order, which does not disclose any application of mind to the case - unable to concur with such casual disposal of the application by the High Court and feel inclined to set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the High Court (Single Judge) with a request to decide the application afresh on merits in accordance with law keeping in view the aforementioned observations.

Petitioner's Advocate : Vivek Gupta
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Subhash Reddy
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre

14. Lalichan v. State of Kerala

Abkari Act (Kerala) - Ss. 8(2) & 63 - Abkari Act, (Kerala) - Ss. 8 (2) & 63 - Possession of 4.5 litres of arrack in a plastic can and 3.750 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor - the interest of justice would be met if the imprisonment is reduced to the period, already undergone by the accused.

Petitioner's Advocate : Sanand Ramakrishnan
Respondent's Advocate : Vipin Nair
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Subhash Reddy
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Subhash Reddy