9 Important Supreme Court Judgments March 1, 2019

1. Anand Kumar Sharma v. Bar Council of India Through Secretary

Advocates Act, 1961 - Section 26 - The suppression that was alleged against the Appellant at the time of seeking enrolment in the Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh pertains to his being in Government service in the State of Himachal Pradesh and his involvement in a criminal case. Subsequent acquittal cannot come to the rescue of the Appellant. Section 26 of the Advocates Act, 1961 confers power on the Bar Council of India to remove the name of a person who entered on the Roll of Advocates by misrepresentation. It is in exercise of this power that the enrollment of the Appellant was cancelled. The first order that was passed by the Bar Council cancelling his enrolment as an advocate was confirmed by this Court. The repeated attempts made by the Appellant later amount to an abuse of process.

Citations : JT 2019 (3) SC 119 : 2019 (4) Scale 56
Case Number : C.A. No. 294 of 2007 01-03-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Sanjay Kumar Tyagi
Respondent's Advocate : Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. R. Shah

2. Fed. of Bank of India Staff Union v. Union of India

The Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 / 1980 - A mere reading of Section 9(3) clause (a) to (i) would go to show that the Board of Directors consists of persons coming from different fields. There cannot, therefore, be a uniform qualification or/and disqualification for such persons. Indeed, the qualifications and disqualifications are bound to vary from category to category and would depend on the post, experience and the stream from where a person is being nominated as a Director. Moreover, the qualification and disqualification has to be seen prior to his/her becoming a Director and not after his/her appointment as a Director.

Citations : 2019 (4) Scale 50
Case Number : C.A. No. 5570 of 2014 01-03-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : T. Mahipal
Respondent's Advocate : Shreekant N. Terdal
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indu Malhotra

3. Lt. Gen. Ravi Dastane Avsm Vsm v. Union of India Ministry of Defence Through Secretary Dhq and Ors.

Army Law - Provisions governing the appointment of Army Commanders - Discussed.

Citations : 2019 (4) Scale 39
Case Number : C.A. No. 9721 of 2014 01-03-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Mohan Pandey
Respondent's Advocate : Mukesh Kumar Maroria
Bench : Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta

4. Varun Pahwa v. Renu Chaudhary

Inadvertent mistake - Application for amendment of the plaint - Inadvertent mistake cannot be refused to be corrected when the mistake is apparent from the reading of the plaint. The Rules of Procedure are handmaid of justice and cannot defeat the substantive rights of the parties. It is well settled that amendment in the pleadings cannot be refused merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the Rules of Procedure. The Court always gives leave to amend the pleadings even if a party is negligent or careless as the power to grant amendment of the pleadings is intended to serve the ends of justice and is not governed by any such narrow or technical limitations.

Citations : JT 2019 (3) SC 109 : 2019 (4) Scale 75
Case Number : C.A. No. 2431 of 2019 01-03-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Avinash Kr. Lakhanpal
Bench : Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta

5. M/s. Vijay Industries v. Commissioner of Income Tax

The Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 80HH - Deduction in respect of profits and gains from newly established industrial undertakings or hotel business in backward areas - Deduction @ 20% of ‘profits and gains’ - Deduction has to be of gross profits and gains, i.e., before computing the income as specified in Sections 30 to 43D of the Act.
  • Motilal Pesticides (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-II, (2000) 9 SCC 63 (Overrruled)
Citations : JT 2019 (3) SC 160 : 2019 (4) Scale 79
Case Number : C.A. No. 1581 - 1582 of 2005 01-03-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Bhargava V. Desai
Respondent's Advocate : B.V. Balaram Das
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri, Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah

6. State of Gujarat Through Principal Secretary v. Jayeshbhai Kanjibhai Kalathiya

The Constitution of India - Once the State permits sand to be excavated, neither can it legally restrict its movement within the territory of India nor is the same constitutionally permissible. Likewise, there is no restriction on the State importing sand from other states. 

If it is the case that the demand of any State is not being met, it may purchase sand from other states. In any event, the market will dictate trade in sand inasmuch as it may make no business sense for mining company to transport and sell its sand in a far away destination after incurring large costs on transportation.

The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - Section 15, 15A and 23 C - ‘illegal mining’ - ‘transportation’ and ‘storage’ - It is the transportation and storage of illegal mining and not the mining of minor minerals like sand which is legal and backed by duly granted license, which can be regulated under this provision. Therefore, no power flows from this provision to make rule for regulating transportation of the legally excavated minerals.

The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - Section 15 and 23 C - Minor Mineral (Amendment) Rules, 2010 (Gujarat) - Rule 71 - Prohibition to transport sand beyond border - Power of State Governments to make rules in respect of minor minerals - the power of the State Government to make rules is restricted to: (a) making rules for grant of quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions in respect of minor minerals and for the purposes connected therewith; and (b) making rules for preventing illegal mining, transportation and storage of minerals and for the purposes connected therewith.

Questions of Law

(a) Whether the impugned rules framed by the State of Gujarat as a delegate of Parliament are beyond the powers granted to it under the MMDR Act? In other words, whether the impugned rules are ultra vires Sections 15, 15A and 23-C of the MMDR Act? 

(b) Whether the impugned rules are violative of Part XIII of the Constitution of India?

Citations : 2019 (4) Scale 92
Case Number : C.A. No. 10373 - 10374 of 2010 01-03-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Hemantika Wahi
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

7. Khoday Distilleries Ltd. (now Khoday India Limited) v. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd.

Doctrine of Merger - Review Petition - Whether review petition is maintainable before the High Court seeking review of a judgment against which the special leave petition has already been dismissed by Supreme Court. Held, Since special leave petition was dismissed in limine without giving any reasons, the review petition filed by the appellant in the High Court would be maintainable and should have been decided on merits.

Case Number : C.A. No. 2432 of 2019 01-03-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Senthil Jagadeesan
Respondent's Advocate : Rajesh Mahale
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri

8. The State of Punjab v. Gurbaran Singh

The Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules (CCS Rules) - Rule 26 - In case of resignation from service or a post, unless the matter was covered under Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 26 of CCS Rules, it would entail forfeiture of past service. Since the past service would stand forfeited, the same would be excluded from the period of qualifying service, and as such for deciding the question of entitlement to pension, the employee would not have the qualifying period of service.

Case Number : C.A. No. 2411 of 2019 01-03-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Uttara Babbar
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Indu Malhotra
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit

9. The Govt. of India v. P. Venkatesh

Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Delay - The claim was liable to be rejected on that ground.

Case Number : C.A. No. 2425 of 2019 01-03-2019
Bench : Hon'ble Dr. Justice D. Y. Chandrachud, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta
Judgment By : Hon'ble Dr. Justice D. Y. Chandrachud
For Petitioner(s) Ms. Madhavi Divan, ASG Ms. Uttara Babbar, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Pall, Adv. Ms. Bhavana Duhoon, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Aravindh S., AOR
Previous Post Next Post