Ads 720 x 90

Supreme Court Weekly Digest February 2019 Part 1

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Power of the arbitral tribunal in granting pre-reference and/or pendente lite interest - Principles. Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. v. Tehri Hydro Development Corporation India Ltd., C.A. No. 1539 of 2019 07-02-2019 A.K. Sikri, S. Abdul Nazeer & M.R. Shah, JJJ.


Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 17 - “place of suing” - A suit in respect to immovable property or properties situate in jurisdiction of different courts may be instituted in any court within whose local limits of jurisdiction, any portion of the property or one or more properties may be situated. Shivnarayan v. Maniklal, C.A. No. 1052 of 2019 06-02-2019 Ashok Bhushan & K.M. Joseph, JJ.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 17 - “place of suing” - A suit in respect to more than one property situated in jurisdiction of different courts can be instituted in a court within local limits of jurisdiction where one or more properties are situated provided suit is based on same cause of action with respect to the properties situated in jurisdiction of different courts. Shivnarayan v. Maniklal, C.A. No. 1052 of 2019 06-02-2019 Ashok Bhushan & K.M. Joseph, JJ.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 17 - “place of suing” - The expression any portion of the property can be read as portion of one or more properties situated in jurisdiction of different courts and can be also read as portion of several properties situated in jurisdiction of different courts. Shivnarayan v. Maniklal, C.A. No. 1052 of 2019 06-02-2019 Ashok Bhushan & K.M. Joseph, JJ.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 17 - “place of suing” - The word ‘property’ occurring in Section 17 although has been used in ‘singular’ but by virtue of Section 13 of the General Clauses Act it may also be read as ‘plural’, i.e., ”properties”. Shivnarayan v. Maniklal, C.A. No. 1052 of 2019 06-02-2019 Ashok Bhushan & K.M. Joseph, JJ.

Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 75, Order XXVI Rule 10 (3) - If the Local Commissioner’s report was found wanting in compliance of applicable instructions for the purpose of demarcation, it was only a matter of irregularity and could have only resulted in discarding of such a report and requiring a fresh report but any such flaw, by itself, could have neither resulted in nullifying the order requiring appointment of Local Commissioner and for recording a finding after taking his report nor in dismissal of the suit. Ram Lal v. Salig Ram, C.A. No. 8285 of 2009 04-02-2019 Abhay Manohar Sapre & Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ.

Constitution of India - Article 136 - When the two Courts below in their respective jurisdiction have appreciated the entire ocular evidence, then Supreme 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. Madan Mohan Mahto v. State of Jharkhand, Crl.A. No. 379 of 2010 07-02-2019 Abhay Manohar Sapre & Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ.

Constitution of India - Article 142 - Enforcement of decrees and orders of Supreme Court and unless as to discovery, etc. - Provisions of Article 142 of the Constitution cannot be resorted to impose sentence less than the minimum sentence. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Vikram Das, Crl.A. No. 208 of 2019 08-02-2019 D.Y. Chandrachud & Hemant Gupta, JJ.

Contempt of Court - A party can be proceeded for disobedience of the order of the court only when there is willful disobedience and noncompliance of the order passed by the court. In the contempt jurisdiction, the court has to confine itself to the four corners of the order alleged to have been disobeyed. Er. K. Arumugam v. V. Balakrishnan, C.A. No. 1510 of 2019 06-02-2019 R. Banumathi & R. Subhash Reddy, JJ.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - 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. Satish Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), Crl.A. No. 234 of 2019 08-02-2019 Abhay Manohar Sapre & Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ.



Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Section 2 (9) - Whether the Directors of Company, who are receiving remuneration, come within the purview of “employee” ? Employees State Insurance Corporation v. Venus Alloy Pvt. Ltd., C.A. No. 1464 of 2019 05-02-2019 Abhay Manohar Sapre & Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ.

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - Section 3 (3) - 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. Municipal Corporation Faridabad v. Modern School Faridabad, C.A. No. 1555 of 2019 08-02-2019 D.Y. Chandrachud & Hemant Gupta, JJ.

Judgment - Applications for recall of the Judgment - Arithmetical errors in the Judgment - Corrected. Hukam Singh v. The State of Haryana, S.L.P. (C) No. 4354 - 4358 of 2019 08-02-2019 U.U. Lalit & D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4 - Deductions to be made on the market value - Principles. Mahanti Devi v. M/s. Jaiprakash Associates Ltd., C.A. No. 1572 of 2019 08-02-2019 L. Nageswara Rao & M.R. Shah, JJ.

Medical Law - 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. 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, M.A. 2867 - 2868 of 2018 08-02-2019 L. Nageswara Rao & Sanjay Kishan Kaul, JJ.

Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 (Haryana) - Municipal Drains - User Charges - Discharge of waste water from the tubewells installed by the Schools - 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. Municipal Corporation Faridabad v. Modern School Faridabad, C.A. No. 1555 of 2019 08-02-2019 D.Y. Chandrachud & Hemant Gupta, JJ.

Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 (Haryana) - Ss. 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 - Discussed. Municipal Corporation Faridabad v. Modern School Faridabad, C.A. No. 1555 of 2019 08-02-2019 D.Y. Chandrachud & Hemant Gupta, JJ.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Cheque might be post dated does not absolve the drawer of a cheque of the penal consequences. Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, Crl.A. No. 230 - 231 of 2019 06-02-2019 R. Banumathi & Indira Banerjee, JJ.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 139 - Even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused, which is towards some payment, would attract presumption in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt. Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, Crl.A. No. 230 - 231 of 2019 06-02-2019 R. Banumathi & Indira Banerjee, JJ.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 139 - Existence of a fiduciary relationship between the payee of a cheque and its drawer, would not disentitle the payee to the benefit of the presumption, in the absence of evidence of exercise of undue influence or coercion. Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, Crl.A. No. 230 - 231 of 2019 06-02-2019 R. Banumathi & Indira Banerjee, JJ.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Fact that the complainant might have been an Income Tax practitioner conversant with knowledge of law does not make any difference to the law relating to the dishonour of a cheque. Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, Crl.A. No. 230 - 231 of 2019 06-02-2019 R. Banumathi & Indira Banerjee, JJ.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Ss. 20, 87, 138 & 139 - It is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer. Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, Crl.A. No. 230 - 231 of 2019 06-02-2019 R. Banumathi & Indira Banerjee, JJ.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Subsequent filling in of an unfilled signed cheque is not an alteration. Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, Crl.A. No. 230 - 231 of 2019 06-02-2019 R. Banumathi & Indira Banerjee, JJ.

Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 302 r/w. 34 - Incident occurred in a broad daylight in the afternoon - there was a rivalry going on account of a land dispute - Courts below believed both PWs 1 & 2 rightly. Madan Mohan Mahto v. State of Jharkhand, Crl.A. No. 379 of 2010 07-02-2019 Abhay Manohar Sapre & Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ.

Penal Code, 1860 - Section 307 - Attempt to murder - Lack of forensic evidence to prove grievous or a life-threatening injury cannot be a basis to hold that Section 307 is inapplicable. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kanha @ Omprakash, Crl.A. No. 1589 of 2018 04-02-2019 D.Y. Chandrachud & M.R. Shah, JJ.

Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 323, 324, 506 & 34 - FIR was lodged after 19 days from the date of alleged incident - Accused party had also attempted to maintain a cross-case by filing a complaint before the Magistrate - the landlord-tenant dispute between the parties stood cleared / settled in terms of the Deed of Compromise and continuance of the proceedings arising out of the said FIR would be an exercise in futility. Satish Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), Crl.A. No. 234 of 2019 08-02-2019 Abhay Manohar Sapre & Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ.

Penal Law - The Court could not award sentence less than the minimum sentence contemplated by the Statute. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Vikram Das, Crl.A. No. 208 of 2019 08-02-2019 D.Y. Chandrachud & Hemant Gupta, JJ.

Pleadings - 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. Deepak Tandon v. Rajesh Kumar Gupta, C.A. No. 1537 - 1538 of 2019 07-02-2019 Abhay Manohar Sapre & Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ.

Rent Control & Eviction - U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - Section 21(1)(a) - Tenancy - Pleadings - Plea of Maintainability. Deepak Tandon v. Rajesh Kumar Gupta, C.A. No. 1537 - 1538 of 2019 07-02-2019 Abhay Manohar Sapre & Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ.

Review - The review, it must be noted is not a re-hearing of the main matter. A review would lie only on detection without much debate of an error apparent. High Court of Tripura through the Registrar General v. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee, C.A. No. 1264 of 2019 06-02-2019 Ashok Bhushan & K.M. Joseph, JJ.

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(xi) - 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. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Vikram Das, Crl.A. No. 208 of 2019 08-02-2019 D.Y. Chandrachud & Hemant Gupta, JJ.

Service Law - Appointment on Compassionate Grounds - Former Scheme & Governing Scheme - Matter requires consideration by a larger Bench. State Bank of India v. Sheo Shankar Tewari, S.L.P. (C) No. 30335 of 2017 08-02-2019 U.U. Lalit & Indu Malhotra, JJ.

Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 38 - An injunction restraining the defendant from disturbing possession may not be granted in favour of the plaintiff unless he proves that he was in actual possession of the suit property on the date of filing of the suit. Balkrishna Dattatraya Galande v. Balkrishna Rambharose Gupta, C.A. No. 1509 of 2019 06-02-2019 R. Banumathi & R. Subhash Reddy, JJ.

Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 38 - Permanent injunction can be granted only to a person who is in actual possession of the property. The burden of proof lies upon the plaintiff to prove that he was in actual and physical possession of the property on the date of suit. Balkrishna Dattatraya Galande v. Balkrishna Rambharose Gupta, C.A. No. 1509 of 2019 06-02-2019 R. Banumathi & R. Subhash Reddy, JJ.

Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 38 - Possession of the plaintiff cannot be based upon the inferences; drawn from circumstances - Plaintiff has to prove actual possession for grant of permanent injunction. Balkrishna Dattatraya Galande v. Balkrishna Rambharose Gupta, C.A. No. 1509 of 2019 06-02-2019 R. Banumathi & R. Subhash Reddy, JJ.

Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 38 - Possession on the date of suit is a must for grant of permanent injunction - When the plaintiff has failed to prove that he was in actual possession of the property on the date of the suit, he is not entitled for the decree for permanent injunction. Balkrishna Dattatraya Galande v. Balkrishna Rambharose Gupta, C.A. No. 1509 of 2019 06-02-2019 R. Banumathi & R. Subhash Reddy, JJ.

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. Deepak Tandon v. Rajesh Kumar Gupta, C.A. No. 1537 - 1538 of 2019 07-02-2019 Abhay Manohar Sapre & Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ.

Tenancy - 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. Deepak Tandon v. Rajesh Kumar Gupta, C.A. No. 1537 - 1538 of 2019 07-02-2019 Abhay Manohar Sapre & Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ.

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 43 - Transfer by unauthorised person who subsequently acquires interest in property transferred - Intention of Section 43 of the Act seems to be that no body can be permitted to take the benefits of his own wrong. Tanu Ram Bora v. Promod Ch Das, C.A. No. 1575 of 2019 08-02-2019 L. Nageswara Rao & M.R. Shah, JJ.

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 60 - Right of mortgagor to Redeem - Right conferred in favour of mortgagor has not been extinguished by act of the parties or by decree of the Court. Gowramma v. Kalingappa, C.A. No. 1574 of 2019 08-02-2019 L. Nageswara Rao & M.R. Shah, JJ.

Wakf Act, 1995 - Ss. 6, 7, 83 & 85 - Constitution of Tribunals - Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Courts - When issue in the suit is as to whether suit property is Wakf property or not is required to be decided by the Tribunal. Punjab Wakf Board v. Sham Singh Harike, C.A. No. 92 of 2019 07-02-2019 Ashok Bhushan & K.M. Joseph, JJ.

Wakf Act, 1995 - 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). Punjab Wakf Board v. Sham Singh Harike, C.A. No. 92 of 2019 07-02-2019 Ashok Bhushan & K.M. Joseph, JJ.

Related Posts

Subscribe Our Newsletter