8 Important Supreme Court of India Judgments Pronounced Today [Tuesday, 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.


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 Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. M. Joseph
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul


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
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. M. Joseph
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul

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’.

Case Number : C.A. No. 180 - 186 of 2019 08-01-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Milind Kumar
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul
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.

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
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi

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.

Petitioner's Advocate : A. Venayagam Balan
Respondent's Advocate : Naresh Bakshi
Bench : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi, Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indira Banerjee
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi

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.

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 Rohinton Fali Nariman

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.

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 Dr. Justice D. Y. Chandrachud

8. Devi Lal v. State of Rajasthan

Case Number : Crl.A. No. 148 of 2010 08-01-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Sarad Kumar Singhania
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. M. Khanwilkar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi