6 Important Supreme Court Judgments February 7, 2019

1. Madan Mohan Mahto v. The State Of Jharkhand

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 read with Section 34 - The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 313.

The Constitution of India - Article 136 - When the two Courts below in their respective jurisdiction have appreciated the entire ocular evidence, then this Court would be very slow in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence afresh unless the appellants are able to point out that the concurrent finding of two Courts below is wholly perverse or is recorded without any evidence or is recorded by misreading or ignoring the material evidence.

Citations : JT 2019 (2) SC 99 : 2019 (2) Scale 730
Case Number : Crl.A. No. 379 of 2010 07-02-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Susmita Lal
Respondent's Advocate : Gopal Prasad
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari

2. Deepak Tandon v. Rajesh Kumar Gupta

The U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - Section 21(1)(a).

Plea of Maintainability - If the plea is not taken in the pleadings by the parties and no issue on such plea was, therefore, framed and no finding was recorded either way by the Trial Court or the First Appellate Court, such plea cannot be allowed to be raised by the party for the first time in third Court whether in appeal, revision or writ, as the case may be, for want of any factual foundation and finding. It is more so when such plea is founded on factual pleadings and requires evidence to prove, i.e., it is a mixed question of law and fact and not pure jurisdictional legal issue requiring no facts to probe.

Pleadings - the question as to whether the tenancy is solely for residential purpose or for commercial purpose or for composite purpose, i.e., for both residential and commercial purpose, is not a pure question of law but is a question of fact, therefore, this question is required to be first pleaded and then proved by adducing evidence.

Tenancy - If the tenancy is for composite purpose because some portion of tenanted premises was being used for residence and some portion for commercial purpose, i.e., residential and commercial, then the landlord will have a right to seek the tenant’s eviction from the tenanted premises for his residential need or commercial need, as the case may be.

Citations : AIR 2019 SC 924 : JT 2019 (2) SC 259 : 2019 (2) Scale 733
Case Number : C.A. No. 1537 - 1538 of 2019 07-02-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : T. Mahipal
Respondent's Advocate : Bankey Bihari Sharma
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari

3. Punjab Wakf Board v. Sham Singh Harike

Wakf Act, 1995 - Sections 83 and 85 - Constitution of Tribunals - Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Courts.

Whether suit filed by the appellant before the Wakf Tribunal praying for decree of possession of suit property was maintainable in Wakf Tribunal or would lie only in a Civil Court. ?

The view of the High Court that right, title and interest of a non-Muslim to the Wakf in a property cannot be put in jeopardy is contrary to the statutory scheme as contained in Section 6 of the Act, 1995. Thus, the reason of the High Court to allow the revision petition is wholly unfounded. The defendant in written statement has pleaded that the suit property is not Wakf property. When issue in the suit is as to whether suit property is Wakf property or not it is covered by specific provision of Sections 6 and 7 of the Wakf Act, 1995, hence, it is required to be decided by the Tribunal under Section 83 and bar under Section 85 shall come into existence with regard to jurisdiction of Civil Court. The defendant having pleaded that suit property is not a Wakf property, the question has to be decided by the Tribunal. Thus, the High Court has committed error in allowing the revision petition. Thus, this appeal deserves to be allowed.

Whether a suit within the meaning of Section 6 sub-section (1) or Section 7(1) is to be filed within a period of one year of publication of list of Wakfs under Section 5. 

The provision contained in proviso to Section 6(1) that no such suit shall be entertained by the Tribunal after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the list of Wakfs shall be applicable to every person who though not interested in the Wakf concerned, is interested in such property and to whom a reasonable opportunity had been afforded to represent his case by notice served on 63 him in that behalf during the course of the relevant inquiry under Section 4. When Section 6 sub-section (1) provides for raising a dispute regarding Wakf property in a period of one year, it applies to every person who wants to dispute the list except those who have been not served notice under Section 4(1).

Citations : JT 2019 (2) SC 263 : 2019 (3) Scale 56
Case Number : C.A. No. 92 of 2019 07-02-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Equity Lex Associates
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph

4. Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (Jal) through Its Director v. Tehri Hydro Development Corporation India Ltd.  (THDS) India Ltd. Through Its Director

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Power of the arbitral tribunal in granting pre-reference and/or pendente lite interest - Principles.

Citations : JT 2019 (2) SC 508 : 2019 (2) Scale 718
Case Number : C.A. No. 1539 of 2019 07-02-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Sharmila Upadhyay
Respondent's Advocate : Puneet Taneja
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri, Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri

5. A. Murugesan v. Smt. Jamuna Rani

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order IX Rule 13 - Application for setting aside the ex-parte decree - Sufficient Cause - When an application is filed for setting aside ex-parte decree under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC, the only aspect which is required to be considered is whether any sufficient cause is shown for absence in the matter when the matter was called.

Citations : JT 2019 (2) SC 314 : 2019 (3) Scale 559
Case Number : C.A. No. 1545 of 2019 07-02-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : P. Ramesh
Respondent's Advocate : Shobha Ramamoorthy
Bench : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Subhash Reddy
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Subhash Reddy

6. Edapaddi K. Palaniswami v. T.T.V. Dhinakaran

The Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Section 29A - If the political group is not registered under Section 29A of the 1951 Act and is not recognized as per the provisions of Symbols Order, 1968, it may not be entitled to claim allotment of a common symbol which is reserved for a registered and recognized State/National political party. That is the quintessence. Paragraphs 9 to 11 would apply to such registered and recognized political party which provide for an option of a reserved symbol. For any other candidate or candidate belonging to unregistered or unrecognized party, his claim would be dealt with under paragraph 12 of the Symbol Order, 1968. The closest provision is paragraph 15 of the Symbol Order, which deals with the powers of the Election Commission in relation to splinter groups or rival factions of the political party. But once that dispute is answered by the Election Commission and that decision attains finality, the splinter group will have no other option but to register itself as a political party and only after fulfillment of the requirements specified in paragraphs 6A to 6C of the Symbols Order, 1968, as applicable, may be given recognition as a National or State political party.

Citations : 2019 (3) Scale 309
Case Number : S.L.P. (C) No. 7258 of 2018 07-02-2019
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar
For Petitioner(s) Ms. Diksha Rai, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. C.S.Vaidyanathan, Sr. Adv. Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, Sr. Adv. Mr.Guru Krishna Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr.Balaji Srinivasan, AOR Mr. Siddhant Kohli, Adv. Ms. Pallavi Sengupta, Adv. Ms. Garima Jain, Adv. Mr. Ravi Raghunath, Adv. Ms. Lakshmi Rao, Adv. Ms. Vaishnavi Subrahmanyam, Adv. Mr. Arunava Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Mayank Kshirsagar, Adv. Ms. Pratiksha Mishra, Adv. Mr. Ram Shankar, Adv. Mr. Harish Shankar Vaidyanathan, Adv. Mr. Babu Murugavel, Adv. Mr. Prakash Kumar Gandhi, Adv. Ms. Shruti Govil, Adv. Mr. Vivek Singh, AOR 49 Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Dipesh Sinha, Adv. Ms. Ayiala Imti, Adv. Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Vivek Singh, Adv. Ms. Niraja Senthor Pandian, Adv. Mr. Amit Bhandari, Adv. Mr. P. Praveen Samadhanam, Adv. Mr. M. Srinivasan, Adv.
Previous Post Next Post