9 Important Supreme Court Judgments February 8, 2019

1. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Vikram Das

The Constitution of India - Article 142 - The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(xi) - Enforcement of decrees and orders of Supreme Court and unless as to discovery, etc. - Punishments for offences of atrocities - Assaults or uses force to any woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe with intent to dishonour or outrage her modesty - Where minimum sentence is provided for, the Court cannot impose less than the minimum sentence - Provisions of Article 142 of the Constitution cannot be resorted to impose sentence less than the minimum sentence.

The conviction has not been disputed by the respondent before the High Court as the quantum of punishment alone was disputed. Thus, the High Court could not award sentence less than the minimum sentence contemplated by the Statute. Therefore, the present appeal is allowed. The order passed by the High Court is set aside.

Citations : AIR 2019 SC 835 : JT 2019 (2) SC 121 : 2019 (2) Scale 695
Case Number : Crl.A. No. 208 of 2019 08-02-2019
Respondent's Advocate : Anup Jain
Bench : Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta


2. The Municipal Corporation Faridabad v. Modern School Faridabad

The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - Section 3 (3) - The Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 - Sections 43, 87, 88, 177, 193, 194, 195, 196, 205 - Obligatory functions of Corporation - Supply of water to connected premises - Public drains etc. to vest in Corporation - Control of drain and sewage disposal works - Certain matters not to be passed into municipal drains - Application by owners and occupiers to drain into municipal drain - Connection with water works and drains not to be made without permission - the Corporation was well within its right to claim user charges for the use of Municipal drains for discharge of waste water from the tubewells installed by the Schools.


Citations : 2019 (2) Scale 688
Case Number : C.A. No. 1555 of 2019 08-02-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Sanjay Kumar Visen
Bench : Hon'ble Dr. Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta

3. Mahanti Devi v. M/s. Jaiprakash Associates Ltd.

The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4 - Principles laid down by Apex Court for the purpose of deductions to be made on the market value.

Citations : 2019 (2) Scale 686
Case Number : C.A. No. 1572 of 2019 08-02-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Nikilesh Ramachandran
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah

4. The Secretary Government of India Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department of Ayush v. A.T.S.V.S. Siddha Medical College and Hospital, Rep. By Its Principal

The Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 - Section 13 (4) - Inspection Reports - Bachelor of Siddha Medicine and Surgery (BSMS Course) - Central Council of Indian Medicine (CCIM) - Assessment of the facilities in 2015- 16 and 2016-17 cannot be done by inspection in 2018.


Citations : 2019 (2) Scale 683
Case Number : M.A. 2867 - 2868 of 2018 08-02-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : KSN & Co. 
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul

5. Shri Gowramma and Anr. v. Shri Kalingappa (d) Represented By Lrs. and Ors.

The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 60 - Right of mortgagor to Redeem - Considering Section 60 of the TP Act, mortgagor has a right to redeem the mortgage as provided under first part of Section 60 of the TP Act, however, provided the right conferred in favour of mortgagor has not been extinguished by act of the parties or by decree of the Court, as per Proviso to Section 60 of the TP Act. 

In the present case, by act of the parties, i.e. on Sundarasetty – mortgagee assignee receiving Rs.3,000/­ being the mortgage amount from Kalingappa and by putting him in possession, as rightly observed by the High Court, the mortgage is extinguished and, therefore, the suit for redemption of the mortgage preferred by the Appellants herein – original plaintiffs was not maintainable. No error has been committed by the High Court in dismissing the suit for redemption of the mortgage preferred by the Appellants herein­original plaintiffs. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court.

Citations : AIR 2019 SC 1012 : JT 2019 (2) SC 252 : 2019 (2) Scale 678
Case Number : C.A. No. 1574 of 2019 08-02-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Anjana Chandrashekar
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah

6. Tanu Ram Bora v. Promod Ch Das (dead) Thr. Lrs.

The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 43 - Transfer by unauthorised person who subsequently acquires interest in property transferred.

Section 43 of the T.P. Act provides that where a person fraudulently or erroneously represents that he is authorised to transfer certain immovable property and professes to transfer such property for consideration, such transfer shall, at the option of the transferee, operates on any interest which the transferor may acquire in such property at any time during which the contract of transfer subsists. Thus, if at the time of transfer, the vendor/transferor might have a defective title or have no title and/or no right or interest, however subsequently the transferor acquires the right, title or interest and the contract of transfer subsists, in that case at the option of the transferee, such a transfer is valid. In such a situation, the transferor cannot be permitted to challenge the transfer and/or the transferor has no option to raise the dispute in making the transfer. The intention and objects behind Section 43 of the T.P. Act seems to be based on the principle of estoppel as well as the equity. The intention and objects seems to be that after procuring the money (sale consideration) and transferring the land, thereafter the transferor is estopped from saying that though he has sold/transferred the property/land on payment of sale consideration, still the transfer is not binding to him. That is why Section 43 of the T.P. Act gives an option to the transferee and not the transferor. The intention of Section 43 of the Act seems to be that no body can be permitted to take the benefits of his own wrong.


Citations : AIR 2019 SC 927 : JT 2019 (2) SC 236 : 2019 (2) Scale 672
Case Number : C.A. No. 1575 of 2019 08-02-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Pawanshree Agrawal
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah

7. State Bank of India v. Sheo Shankar Tewari

Appointment on Compassionate Grounds - The decisions relied upon by the petitioner proceed on the premise that there is no vested right to have the matter considered under the former scheme and the governing scheme would be one which was in force when the applications came up for consideration. On the other hand, the decision relied upon by the respondent proceeds on a different principle and stipulates that the governing scheme would be the former scheme and any subsequent that came into force after the claim was raised would not be applicable. The principles emanating from these two lines of decisions, are not consistent and do not reconcile. The matter therefore requires consideration by a larger Bench of at least three Hon’ble Judges of this Court.

Citations : JT 2019 (2) SC 248 : 2019 (2) Scale 667
Case Number : SLP (C) No. 30335 of 2017 08-02-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Sanjay Kapur
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indu Malhotra

8. Hukam Singh v. The State of Haryana

Applications for recall of the Judgment - Arithmetical errors in the Judgment - The modifications set out in para 9 shall be effected in the Judgment and a corrected copy shall again be uploaded by the Registry. Any certified copy of the Judgment issued hereafter must reflect the modifications as set out in para 9 of this order.


Citations : 2019 (2) Scale 662
Case Number : S.L.P. (C) No. 4354 - 4358 of 2019 08-02-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud

9. Satish Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi)

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323, 324, 506 and 34 - The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Guiding principles for exercise of power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. while dealing with the proposition of settlement and for quashing the criminal proceedings.

The FIR in question itself was lodged after 19 days from the date of alleged incident. The accused party had also attempted to maintain a cross-case by filing a complaint before the Magistrate. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the affidavit of informant, the High Court formed the opinion that the landlord-tenant dispute between the parties stood cleared/settled in terms of the said Deed of Compromise and continuance of the proceedings arising out of the said FIR would be an exercise in futility. We are unable to find any error or illegality in the approach of the High Court in this case.

Citations : AIR 2019 SC 910 : JT 2019 (2) SC 256 : 2019 (2) Scale 658
Case Number : Crl.A. No. 234 of 2019 08-02-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Ram Kishor Singh Yadav
Respondent's Advocate : Chirag M. Shroff
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari
Previous Post Next Post