11 Important Supreme Court Judgments February 5, 2019

1. Dharam Singh (d) Thr. Lrs v. Prem Singh (d) Thr. Lrs.

Land Law - Every person, who on the date immediately preceding the appointed date, was recorded as occupant of the land held by a hissedar or a khaikar as such in the last revision of records made under Chapter IV of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 shall be called Asami of land and entitled to take or retain possession thereof. For acquiring right under Section 10 sub-clause (e) it has to be established that person claiming Asami right was recorded as occupant of land.

Case Number : C.A. No. 516 of 2009 05-02-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Raj Singh Rana
Respondent's Advocate : Mithilesh Kumar Singh
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph


2. M/s. Tata Motors Ltd. Through Its Chief Legal Counsel v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes (Spl)

The Sale of Goods Act, 1930 - Section 4 (1) - Sale and agreement to sell - Liability towards sales tax, in respect of the free replacement of defective parts in motor vehicles, during the period of warranty - It appropriate that the matter be considered by a larger Bench..



Case Number : C.A. No. 1822 of 2007 05-02-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Manik Karanjawala
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul

3. The State of Gujarat v. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477A and 120B - While taking cognizance of an offence under Section 190(1) (b) Cr.P.C., whether the court has to record reasons for its satisfaction of sufficient grounds for issuance of summons - Whether revision under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. against order of issue of process is maintainable - Discussed.

Case Number : Crl.A. No. 224 of 2019 05-02-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Hemantika Wahi
Bench : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi, Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Indira Banerjee
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi

4. Asgar v. Mohan Varma

Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act 1958 (Kerala) - A claim under Section 4 (1) has to be addressed to the court which passes a decree for eviction - the failure to raise a claim would result in the application of the principle of constructive res judicata both having regard to the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act of 1958 and to the provisions of Order XXI Rules 97 to 101 of the CPC.

Case Number : C.A. No. 1500 of 2019 05-02-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Ankur S. Kulkarni
Bench : Hon'ble Dr. Justice D. Y. Chandrachud, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta

5. Ambi Ram v. State of Uttarakhand

The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 - Section 5 (2) - The Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 161 - the Court is empowered to impose a sentence, which may vary from 1 year to 7 years with fine. However, in a particular case, the Court finds that there are some special reasons in favour of the accused then the Court is empowered to impose imprisonment of less than one year provided those special reasons are set out in writing in support of imposing sentence less than one year. So far as imposing of fine is concerned, it is mandatory while imposing any jail sentence. How much fine should be imposed depend upon the facts of each case.



Case Number : Crl.A. No. 1723 of 2009 05-02-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Arun K. Sinha
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari

6. Hori Lal v. The State Of Uttar Pradesh Revenue Department Principal Secretary

The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4 (1) - Contention that the date for determining the compensation should be the date on which the Land Acquisition Officer passed the award. This argument does not have any basis and is, therefore, not acceptable for the simple reason that such date is not provided either in the old Act, 1894 or in the Act, 2013.

Case Number : C.A. No. 1462 of 2019 05-02-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Vinod Kumar Tewari
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Subhash Reddy

7. The Commissioner Mysore Urban Development Authority v. S. S. Sarvesh

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - An order of refusal to re­admit the appeal passed by the Appellate Court under Order 41 Rule 19 of the Code is made expressly appealable under Order 43 Rule 1(t) of the Code to the High Court.

The Courts below should have seen that the first appeal is a valuable right of the appellant and, therefore, the appellant-­Authority was entitled for an opportunity to prosecute their appeal on merits. If the appellant’s advocate did not appear may be for myriad reasons, the Court could have imposed some cost on them for restoration of their appeal to compensate the respondent(plaintiff) instead of depriving them of their valuable right to prosecute the appeal on merits.

Case Number : C.A. No. 1463 - 1463 of 2019 05-02-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Mahesh Thakur
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari

8. Employees State Insurance Corporation Thr. Regional Directors v. Venus Alloy Pvt. Ltd. Thr. Managaing Director

Whether the Directors of Company, who are receiving remuneration, come within the purview of “employee” under sub-section (9) of Section 2 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 ?



Case Number : C.A. No. 1464 of 2019 05-02-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : P. N. Puri
Respondent's Advocate : Dushyant Parashar
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari

9. Union Of India v. Shri Harananda

Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 - Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has committed any error in treating and/or considering the O.M. No. 96/E(GR)I/16/I dated 8.5.2003 of the DoPT, Government of India as ‘in principle’ decision for constitution of the RPF as an Organized Group “A” Central Service and thereby directing to take further steps of Cadre Structure of RPF as also to finalize the Service Rules with reference to the RPF being an Organized Group “A” Central Civil Service?

Case Number : C.A. No. 1474 - 1474 of 2019 05-02-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : B.V. Balaram Das
Respondent's Advocate : Amit Kumar
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. R. Shah

10. Bihar State Beverages Corporation Ltd. v. Naresh Kumar Mishra

Bihar Service Code - Rule 282 and 283 - On fair reading of Rule 283(c) and Rule 283(e), it can be seen that it is permissible for the foreign service to pay something more than what the employees were getting in the parent department. Therefore, the interpretation on behalf of the Corporation on reading Rule 283 that the employee sent on deputation to a foreign service has to be paid the same salary/pay scale which he was getting in the parent department, cannot be accepted. Therefore, reliance placed on Rule 282 and 283 of the Bihar Service Code while passing the resolution dated 27.3.2012 was absolutely either misplaced and/or on misinterpretation and, therefore, the same is rightly set aside by the High Court.



Case Number : C.A. No. 1468 - 1469 of 2019 05-02-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Gopal Singh
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. R. Shah

11. Ritu Bhatia v. Ministry of Civil Supplies Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution

Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case can it be said that the appellant fulfilled the eligibility criteria mentioned in the advertisement of having experience of five years ‘as’ a Company Secretary and/or, can it be said that the period during which the appellant worked as ‘Management Trainee’ and/or ‘Assistant Company Secretary’ be considered for treating the appellant having been appointed ‘as’ a Company Secretary so as to become eligible for the post of Company Secretary which was advertised?

The word ‘as’ and the words ‘experience as Company Secretary’ used in the advertisement are very clear and it means the candidate ought to be appointed and worked as such ‘as’ a Company Secretary. As appellant did not fulfil the eligibility criteria of having five years post qualification experience ‘as’ Company Secretary as on 30.11.2013, the services of the appellant have rightly been terminated.

Case Number : C.A. No. 1467 of 2019 05-02-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Sarla Chandra
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. R. Shah