11 Important Supreme Court Judgments January 8, 2019

1. Alok Kumar Verma v. Union of India

Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 - Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Court set aside the following orders dated 23rd October, 2018: (i) of the CVC divesting the powers, functions, duties, supervisory role, etc. of Shri Alok Kumar Verma as Director, CBI (ii) of the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training divesting Shri Alok Kumar Verma, Director, CBI of his functions, powers, duties and supervisory role with immediate effect and until further orders. (iii) of the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training by which one Shri M. Nageshwar Rao, IPS, Joint Director, CBI has been asked to look after the duties and functions of Director, CBI with immediate effect.

Citations : AIR 2019 SC 438 : JT 2019 (1) SC 166 : 2019 (1) Scale 257
Case Number : W. P. (C) No. 1309 of 2018 08-01-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Vishwajit Singh
Respondent's Advocate : Arvind Kumar Sharma
Bench : Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Ranjan Gogoi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph




2. Common Cause (Registered Society) v. Union of India

Central Bureau of Investigation - The organization i.e. CBI has grown over the years in its role, power and importance and today has become the premier investigative and prosecution agency of the country. The high stature and the pre­eminent position that the institution has acquired is largely on account of a strong perception of the necessity of having such a premier agency. Such a perception finds reflection in the conscious attempts of the Government of the day to introduce reforms, from time to time, so as to enable the institution to reach greater heights in terms of integrity, independence and confidence. A close look at such attempts will now be in order.

Case Number : W.P. (C) No. 1315 of 2018 08-01-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Prashant Bhushan
Respondent's Advocate : Arvind Kumar Sharma
Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Ranjan Gogoi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph

3. Additional Commissioner (Legal) Commercial Taxes Rajasthan v. M/s Lohiya Agencies

Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - ‘Gypsum’ (calcium sulphate dihydrate – CaSO4.2H2O) - the amended Entry 56 of Schedule IV of the RVAT, read as ‘gypsum in all its forms’, would include ‘gypsum board’ under the term ‘all its forms.

Citations : AIR 2019 SC 345 : JT 2019 (1) SC 228 : 2019 (1) Scale 277
Case Number : C.A. No. 180 - 186 of 2019 08-01-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Milind Kumar
Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Ranjan Gogoi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul



4. Punjab State Electricity Board v. Thana Singh

Service Law - Equation of pay scales must be left to the Government and on the decision of the experts and the Court should not interfere with it.

Citations : AIR 2019 SC 354 : 2019 (1) Scale 244
Case Number : C.A. No. 193 of 2019 08-01-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : A. Venayagam Balan
Respondent's Advocate : S.L. Aneja
Bench : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi, Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indira Banerjee

5. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. v. Rajesh Kumar Jindal

Service Law - Parity of Pay Scale - Burden of Proof - Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 - Section 79(c) - Punjab Public Works Departments (Electricity Branch) State Service Class-III (Subordinate Posts) Rules, 1958 - Question of parity of pay scale between the Head Clerks and the Internal Auditors - Burden of proof on the person claiming parity of pay scale - Nature of duties and responsibilities of Head Clerks are different from the Internal Auditors - Report of the Pay Anomaly Committee - Internal Auditors cannot claim parity - Conscious exercise of option to go as Internal Auditors - Promotional avenues available to the Internal Auditors - Merely because various different posts have been categorized under Group XII, they cannot claim parity of pay scale as that of the Head Clerk. All the more so, when the Internal Auditors are appointed 55% by direct recruitment and 45% by promotion from Circle Assistant/Assistant Revenue Accountant. The High Court did not keep in view that the duties, nature of work and promotion channel of Head Clerks and Internal Auditors are entirely different and that option to seek promotion apparently as Internal Auditors was the “conscious exercise of option”, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.

Citations : 2019 (1) Crimes 43 : JT 2019 (1) SC 113 : 2019 (1) Scale 218
Case Number : C.A. No. 195 - 198 of 2019 08-01-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : A. Venayagam Balan
Respondent's Advocate : Naresh Bakshi
Bench : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi, Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indira Banerjee



6. Monsanto Technology LIC thru the Authorised Representative Ms. Natalia Voruz v. Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. thru the Director

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 - Patents Act, 1970 - Section 64 - Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001 - Revocation of patent based on a counter claim in a suit. The issues raised were complicated requiring technological and expert evidence with regard to issues of chemical process, biochemical, biotechnical and microbiological processes and more importantly whether the nucleic acid sequence trait once inserted could be removed from that variety or not and whether the patented DNA sequence was a plant or a part of a plant etc. are again all matters which were required to be considered at the final hearing of the suit.

Citations : AIR 2019 SC 559 : 2019 (1) SCALE 234
Case Number : C.A. No. 4616 - 4617 of 2018 08-01-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : E.C. Agrawala
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha



7. Ex. Lac Yogesh Pathania v. Union of India

Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 - Section 30 read with Section 31 - In terms of Section 31 of the Act, an appeal to this Court is maintainable with the leave of the Tribunal and such leave can be granted on the ground “that a point of law of general public importance” or “it appears to the Supreme Court that the point is one which ought to be considered by that Court”. The point on which this Court will exercise jurisdiction is a point of law of general public importance. We do not find that any point of law of general public importance is involved which may warrant grant of leave to the appellant. Consequently, I.A.No.1 of 2016 along with Civil Appeal is dismissed.

Citations : JT 2019 (1) SC 109 : 2019 (1) Scale 254
Case Number : C.A. No. 14214 of 2016 08-01-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Varinder Kumar Sharma
Respondent's Advocate : Mukesh Kumar Maroria
Bench : Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta

8. Devi Lal v. State of Rajasthan

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 read with 34 and 120B - The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 27 - Extra Judicial Confession - Circumstantial Evidence.

Evidence Law - Extra Judicial Confession - An extra judicial confession is used against its maker but as a matter of caution, advisable for the Court to look for a corroboration with the other evidence on record.

Citations : AIR 2019 SC 688 : 2019 (1) Crimes 8 : 2019 (1) SCALE 340
Case Number : Crl.A. No. 148 of 2010 08-01-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Sarad Kumar Singhania
Bench : Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Ranjan Gogoi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi

9. M/s. Sicagen India Ltd. v. Mahindra Vadineni

The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Whether the prosecution based upon second or successive dishonour of the cheque is permissible or not ?

In the present case as pointed out earlier that cheques were presented twice and notices were issued. The complaint filed based on the second statutory notice is not barred and the High Court ought not to have quashed the criminal complaint and the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.

Citations: AIR 2019 SC 502 : JT 2019 (1) SC 370 : 2019 (1) SCALE 429
Case Number : Crl.A. No. 26 - 27 of 2019 08-01-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : K.K. Mani
Respondent's Advocate : S. Gowthaman
Bench : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi, Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indira Banerjee
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi

10. Union of India v. Central Administrative Tribunal

Service Law - The issue pertains to a direction for regularizing the services of eighteen respondents in Group ‘D’ posts at the Regional Training Institute at Allahabad. The organization falls under the administrative control of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India.

Citations : 2019 (1) SCALE 527
Case Number : C.A. No. 175 - 176 of 2019 08-01-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Anil Katiyar
Bench : Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta
Judgment By : Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud

11. Chander Bhan Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Criminal Justice System - Having considered the fact that this case had taken place as long back as in the year 2002 and almost sixteen years have elapsed, and that it is ingrained in our criminal justice system that we seek to provide speedy justice as a matter of a constitutional right, we do not consider this case to be an appropriate one to decide on the question of law considering the peculiar facts and circumstances involved.

Citations : 2019 (1) Scale 415
Case Number : Crl.A. No. 30 of 2019 08-01-2019
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
Judgement By: Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana
Previous Post Next Post