7 Important Supreme Court Judgments April 15, 2019

1. Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority v. Karamjit Singh

Service Law - Regularization of Services - The Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority Employees (Punishment and Appeal) Regulations, 1997 - An order of regularization obtained by misrepresenting facts, or by playing a fraud upon the competent authority, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

Facts of the Case

The question of holding disciplinary proceedings as envisaged under Article 311 of the Constitution, or under any other disciplinary rules did not arise in the present case since the Respondent was admittedly not an “employee” of the Appellant – Authority, and did not hold a civil post under the State Government. He was merely a daily wager on the muster rolls of the Appellant – Authority.

Case Number : C.A. No. 3925 of 2019 15-04-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Rachana Joshi Issar
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indu Malhotra


2. Om Prakash Ram v. State of Bihar

Civil Law - Suit for Declaration of Title, Restoration of Possession and for Eviction.

Case Number : C.A. No. 3937 of 2019 15-04-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Arun K. Sinha
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar

3. Chandrika (dead) By Lrs. v. Sudama (dead) Thr. Lrs.

The U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Section 9­A (2) - the finding is based on factual inquiry; Second, it is based on proper appreciation of evidence, i.e., revenue entries; Third, it is not found to be against any provision of law or against the record of the case; and lastly, it is supported with reasons. Therefore, find no ground to interfere in these findings.

Case Number : C.A. No. 1299 of 2009 15-04-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : T.N. Singh
Respondent's Advocate : P. Narasimhan
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari

4. Ashok Kumar Mehra v. The State of Punjab

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 read with Section 34 - Juvenile - Issue relating to the genuineness of the date of birth - It is not in dispute that appellant No.2 had filed his date of birth certificate in the Sessions Court - the prosecution did not object to the correctness of the birth certificate before the Sessions Judge - this Court granted bail to appellant No. 2 on this ground observing therein that since he was juvenile at the time of commission of the offence and was below 18 years, which was not disputed by the State - even at the time of hearing of this appeal, the State did not dispute the date of birth certificate of appellant No.2 - It is not necessary to hold any further inquiry on this question.

Case Number : Crl.A. No. 1466 - 1467 of 2008 15-04-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Yash Pal Dhingra
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari

5. Md. Allauddin Khan v. The State of Bihar

Criminal Law - In order to see whether any prima facie case against the accused for taking its cognizable is made out or not, the Court is only required to see the allegations made in the complaint.

The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Contradictions in the statements of the witnesses on the point of occurrence - the High Court had no jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence of the proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. because whether there are contradictions or/and inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses is essentially an issue relating to appreciation of evidence and the same can be gone into by the Judicial Magistrate during trial when the entire evidence is adduced by the parties. That stage is yet to come in this case.

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323, 379 read with Section 34 - Mere pendency of a civil suit is not an answer to the question as to whether a case under Sections 323, 379 read with Section 34 IPC is made out or not.

The High Court did not examine the case with a view to find out as to whether the allegations made in the complaint prima facie make out the offences falling under Sections 323, 379 read with Section 34 IPC or not. Instead the High Court gave importance to the fact that since there was a dispute pending between the parties in the Civil Court in relation to a shop as being landlord and tenant, it is essentially a civil dispute between the parties. It is on this ground, the High Court proceeded to quash the complaint. This approach of the High Court is faulty.

Case Number : Crl.A. No. 675 of 2019 15-04-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Binay Kumar Das
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari

6. Bihari Lal v. The State of Rajasthan

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 307, 323, 325, 336, and 341 read with Section 34Attempt to Murder - The stage to appreciate the evidence with a view to find fault or/and inconsistencies in the two medical reports would arise only when the prosecution leads evidence by examining the doctors in support of the medical reports.

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 307 - Attempt to Murder - Mere perusal of the medical reports filed by the prosecution would prima facie show that a case under Section 307 IPC is made out and, therefore, the charge under Section 307 IPC should have been framed along with the other charges.

Case Number : Crl.A. No. 676 of 2019 15-04-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Rishi Matoliya
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari

7. Dr. Manohar Ganapathi Ravankar v. H. Gurunanda Raikar

Civil Law - Suit for Specific Performance of the Agreement of Sale - the entire story of payment of Rs. 6,75,000/- at the time of handing over the title documents is wholly unbelievable - Plaintiff has not asserted such fact in the plaint or in the notice - High Court erred in law in passing a decree for recovery of the said amount only on the basis of presumptions - Plaintiff is not entitled to decree for relief of specific performance, in view of the finding recorded by the High Court itself that he was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.

Case Number : C.A. No. 3415 of 2019 15-04-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Nuli & Nuli
Bench : Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta
Previous Post Next Post