7 Important Supreme Court Judgments March 13, 2019

1. Prakash Singh v. Union of India

Service Law - Recommendation for appointment to the post of Director General of Police by the Union Public Service Commission and preparation of panel should be purely on the basis of merit from officers who have a minimum residual tenure of six months i.e. officers who have at least six months of service prior to the retirement.

Case Number : W.P. (C) No. 310 of 1996 13-03-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Prashant Bhushan
Bench : Hon'ble The Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjiv Khanna


2. Gurnam Singh (d) By Lrs. v. Lehna Singh (d) By Lrs.

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Second Appeal - the jurisdiction of High Court to entertain second appeal under Section 100 CPC after the 1976 Amendment, is confined only when the second appeal involves a substantial question of law. The existence of ‘a substantial question of law’ is a sine qua non for the exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 100 of the CPC.

In a second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, the High Court cannot substitute its own opinion for that of the First Appellate Court, unless it finds that the conclusions drawn by the lower Court were erroneous being:

(i) Contrary to the mandatory provisions of the applicable law; OR
(ii) Contrary to the law as pronounced by the Apex Court; OR
(iii) Based on in­admissible evidence or no evidence.

If First Appellate Court has exercised its discretion in a judicial manner, its decision cannot be recorded as suffering from an error either of law or of procedure requiring interference in second appeal. The Trial Court could have decided differently is not a question of law justifying interference in second appeal.


The High Courts under Section 100 CPC are disturbing the concurrent findings of facts and/or even the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court, either without formulating the substantial question of law or on framing erroneous substantial question of law.

The Apex Court reminded the High Courts the limitations under Section 100 of the CPC and again hopes that High Courts would keep in mind the legal position before interfering in Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Case Number : C.A. No. 6567 of 2014 13-03-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Mukul Kumar
Respondent's Advocate : Jyoti Mendiratta
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah

3. Uma Mahesh Bandekar v. Vivek Sadanand Marathe

The Goa Daman & Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 - Section 2 (o) - The Goa Succession, Special Notaries and Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012 - The Goa Rent Act - Section 59 - Portuguese Civil Code - Right of a married daughter by way of succession in the “lease premises” - Whether with respect to “lease premises”, a married daughter shall have a right of succession, vis a vis, Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012 or not? Held, a married daughter would have a right of succession in the “lease premises” also.


Case Number : C.A. No. 2961 of 2019 13-03-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Binu Tamta
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. R. Shah

4. Raghwendra Sharan Singh v. Ram Prasanna Singh

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 7 Rule 11 (d) - Rejection of the Plaint - By mere clever drafting, the plaintiff cannot bring the suit within the period of limitation.

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 7 Rule 11 (d) - Rejection of the Plaint - Scope and ambit of the application under - Meaning of “cause of action” - by clever drafting the plaintiff has tried to bring the suit within the period of limitation which, otherwise, is barred by law of limitation - as the suit is clearly barred by law of limitation, the plaint is required to be rejected.

When the suit is barred by any law, the plaintiff cannot be allowed to circumvent that provision by means of clever drafting so as to avoid mention of those circumstances, by which the suit is barred by law of limitation. 

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 7 Rule 11 (d) - Rejection of the Plaint  - Considering the averments in the plaint if it is found that the suit is clearly barred by law of limitation, the same can be rejected.



The plaintiff has never prayed for any declaration to set aside the gift deed. We are of the opinion that such a prayer is not asked cleverly. If such a prayer would have been asked, in that case, the suit can be said to be clearly barred by limitation considering Article 59 of the Limitation Act and, therefore, only a declaration is sought to get out of the provisions of the Limitation Act, more particularly, Article 59 of the Limitation Act. Both the High Court as well as the learned trial Court have erred in not exercising the powers under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC and in not rejecting the plaint in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC.

Case Number : C.A. No. 2960 of 2019 13-03-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Lakshmi Raman Singh
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. R. Shah
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah

5. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd. v. M.S. Creations

Consumer Law - Shipments (Comprehensive Risk) Policy.

Case Number : C.A. No. 2987 of 2019 13-03-2019
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bharat Sangal, AOR Ms. Laiman R. Bano, Adv. Ms. Babita Kushwaha, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Anil Kumar Tandale, AOR Mr. M. T George, AOR Mr. Subhash Chandra, Adv. Ms. Kavitha K.T., Adv. Mr. A. N. Arora, AOR Mr. Himanshu Gupta, Adv.
Bench : Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta
Judgment By : Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud

6. Ripudaman Singh v. Balkrishna

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Cheques were issued under and in pursuance of the agreement to sell. Though it is well settled that an agreement to sell does not create any interest in immoveable property, it nonetheless constitutes a legally enforceable contract between the parties to it. A payment which is made in pursuance of such an agreement is hence a payment made in pursuance of a duly enforceable debt or liablity for the purposes of Section 138.

Case Number : Crl.A. No. 483 of 2019 13-03-2019
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) Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Santosh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Visushant Gupta, Adv. Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Akshat Shrivastava, AOR Ms. Pooja Shrivastava, Adv.

7. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Deepak

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 397 read with 401 - The Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 306 - The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(2)(V).

In the present case, there is sufficient material on record to uphold the order framing charges of the Trial Court. The discharge of the accused was not justified. The High Court has evidently ignored what has emerged during the course of the investigation. The material indicates that several complaints were filed by the deceased. The last of them was filed a few days before the suicide. It is alleged that the respondent had taken a loan of Rs 5 lakhs through fraudulent means in the name of the deceased and an altercation took place between him and the deceased in that regard. Moreover, the respondent is alleged to have got the deceased evicted from a rented house as well as terminated from her employment at Central Bank. There is a dying declaration.

Case Number : Crl.A. No. 485 of 2019 13-03-2019
Bench : Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta
Judgment By : Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud
Previous Post Next Post