15 Important Supreme Court Judgments May 10, 2019

1. B.K. Pavitra v. Union of India

Constitution of India - Article 16 - Reservation - Constitutional Challenge - Constitutional Backdrop to Reservations in Karnataka - Assent to the Bill - Does the Reservation Act 2018 overrule or nullify B.K. Pavitra I - Is the basis of B.K. Pavitra I cured in enacting the Reservation Act 2018- Ratna Prabha Committee Report - Substantive versus formal equality - Constituent Assembly‘s understanding of Article 16 (4) - Constitution as a transformative instrument - Efficiency in administration - Issue of creamy layer - Retrospectivity - the challenge to the constitutional validity of the Reservation Act 2018 is lacking in substance. Following the decision in B.K. Pavitra I, the State government duly carried out the exercise of collating and analysing data on the compelling factors adverted to by the Constitution Bench in Nagaraj. The Reservation Act 2018 has cured the deficiency which was noticed by B.K. Pavitra I in respect of the Reservation Act 2002. The Reservation Act 2018 does not amount to a usurpation of judicial power by the state legislature. It is Nagaraj and Jarnail compliant. The Reservation Act 2018 is a valid exercise of the enabling power conferred by Article 16 (4A) of the Constitution.



Case Number : M.A. No. 1151 of 2018 10-05-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : V.N. Raghupathy
Bench : Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta


2. Rakesh Tiwari, Advocate v. Alok Pandey, CJM

Advocate - An advocate is duty bound to act as per the higher status conferred upon him as an officer of the court. He plays a vital role in preservation of society and justice delivery system. Advocate has no business to threaten a Judge or hurl abuses for judicial order which he has passed. In case of complaint of the Judge, it was open to the advocate to approach concerned higher authorities but there is no licence to any member of the Bar to indulge in such undignified conduct to lower down the dignity of the Court. Such attempts deserve to be nipped at the earliest as there is no room to such attack by a member of noble profession.

The role of a lawyer is indispensable in the justice delivery system. He has to follow the professional ethics and also to maintain high standards. He has to assist the court and also defend the interest of his client. He has to give due regard to his opponent and also to his counsel. What may be proper to others in the society, may be improper for him to do as he belongs to an intellectual class of the society and as a member of the noble profession, the expectations from him are accordingly higher. Advocates are held in high esteem in the society. The dignity of court is in fact dignity of the system of which an advocate being officer of the court. The act of the advocate in the present case is not only improper but requires gross condemnation. [Paras 7 and 8]

Facts of the Case

In the instant case the advocate has acted contrary to the obligations. He has set a bad example before others while destroying the dignity of the court and the Judge. The action has the effect of weakening of confidence of the people in courts. The judiciary is one of the main pillars of democracy and is essential to peaceful and orderly development of society. The Judge has to deliver justice in a fearless and impartial manner. He cannot be intimidated in any manner or insulted by hurling abuses. Judges are not fearful saints. They have to be fearless preachers so as to preserve the independence of the judiciary which is absolutely necessary for survival of democracy.

Case Number : Crl.A. No. 1223 of 2015 10-05-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Vidhi International
Respondent's Advocate : Jagjit Singh Chhabra
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha

3. Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. The State of Punjab

The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 - Sections 21, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29 and 30 - The Arms Act, 1959 - Section 25­A -The Information Technology Act, 2000 - Section 66.

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 319 - Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence.

After pursuing the relevant facts and circumstances, the following substantial questions of law arise for further consideration.

I. Whether the trial court has the power under Section 319 of CrPC for summoning additional accused when the trial with respect to other co-­accused has ended and the judgment of conviction rendered on the same date before pronouncing the summoning order?

II. Whether the trial court has the power under Section 319 of the CrPC for summoning additional accused when the trial in respect of certain other absconding accused (whose presence is subsequently secured) is ongoing/pending, having been bifurcated from the main trial?

III. What are the guidelines that the competent court must follow while exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C?

In light of the same, the Registry to place these matters before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for constitution of a Bench of appropriate strength for considering the aforesaid questions.


Case Number : Crl.A. No. 885 of 2019 10-05-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Nikhil Jain
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar

4. The Superintending Engineer TWAD Board v. M. Natesan

The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 17B - Reinstatement and the back wages at 50% - Most of the respondents have attained the age of superannuation therefore, there is no question of reinstatement - All that are concerned is the payment of 50% back wages and also the quantum of money payable in lieu of reinstatement - The amount so far paid to the respondents and Rs.2,00,000/- paid to each of the workmen shall be treated as back wages and also the compensation in full quit of all claims in lieu of reinstatement and all other claims.

Case Number : C.A. No. 4875 - 4884 of 2019 10-05-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Vinodh Kanna B. 
Bench : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Subhash Reddy

5. The State of Bihar v. The Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee Munger

The Constitution of India - Article 21A - The Right of Children to Free and Compulsion Education Act, 2009 - The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2010 - Rule 20 - The Bihar non-Government Secondary Schools (Taking over of Management and Control) Act, 1981 - Equal Pay for Equal Work - Limitations or Qualifications to the applicability of the doctrine - Scales of Niyojit Teachers - Salary and allowances and conditions of service of teachers - The teachers must be entitled to decent emoluments.


Case Number : C.A. No. 4862 of 2019 10-05-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Gopal Singh
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit

6. Jitender Kumar @jitender Singh v. The State of Bihar

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 325, 326, 331, 352 read with Section 34The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Petition under - the High Court did not assign any reason as to why the petition is liable to be dismissed - Neither there is any discussion and nor the reasoning on the submissions urged by the learned counsel for the parties - Such approach of the High Court while disposing of the petition cannot be countenanced - It is obligatory for the Court to assign the reasons as to why the petition is allowed or rejected.

Case Number : Crl.A. No. 888 of 2019 10-05-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Kumar Mihir
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari

7. Kumud W/o Mahadeorao Slunke v. Shri Pandurang Narayan Gandhewar Through Lrs.

The Transfer of Property Act, 1982 - Section 108 - The Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, clearance and Re-development) Act, 1971 - Section 22 (4) - Eviction of a Tenant - Whether the requirements of Section 22(4) of the Act stood satisfied or not was a matter which was dealt with by the Appellate Authority in sufficient detail - there was no reason for the High Court to interfere in its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.


Case Number : C.A. No. 4873 of 2019 10-05-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Anuradha Mutatkar
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indu Malhotra

8. Anjum Hussain v. Intellicity Business Park Pvt. Ltd.

The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 2 (1) (b), 2 (1) (d), 12 (1) (c), 12 (v) (o), 13 (6) and 23 - “complainant” and “consumer” - definition of - Class Action - Manner in which complaint shall be made - Procedure on admission of complaint - Oneness of the interest is akin to a common grievance against the same person.

Case Number : C.A. No. 1676 of 2019 10-05-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Rohit Kumar Singh
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit

9. Narad Patel v. The State of Chhattisgarh

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 294 and 506-B - The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(x) - there was no reference to the caste or tribe of the complainant - Affirmed the conviction and sentence under Section 294 IPC - granted benefit of doubt and acquitted the charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act.


Case Number : Crl.A. No. 883 of 2019 10-05-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Vikrant Singh Bais
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit

10. Ram Parshotam Mittal v. Hotel Queen Road Pvt. Ltd.

The Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 81 (1A), 87, 108, 286, 300 - Voting Rights - Notice of Meetings - Interested director not to participate or vote in Board's proceedings - Transfer not to be registered except on production of instrument of transfer - It was improper for the Directors to allot shares to themselves and to the exclusion of Mr. Ashok Mittal in the facts and circumstances of the case and that too without issuance of notice to him.

Case Number : C.A. No. 3934 of 2017 10-05-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Lawyer S. Knit & Co
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra, Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Indira Banerjee

11. Lber Laloo v. All Dimasa Students Union Hasao District Committee

The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - illegal mining of coal - At present, only permission, which can be granted for transportation is of 75050 Mts. of coal with regard to which transport challans have already been issued by the State of Meghalaya. If permission for transport of coal is granted by this Court, there is grave danger of illegal mining. The ban on mining has already been imposed by the National Green Tribunal, which order has not yet been interfered by this Court.

Case Number : I.A. Nos. 5051 & 5055 of 2019 10-05-2019
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan, Hon'ble Mr. K.M. Joseph

12. Nand Kishore Prasad v. Mohib Hamidi

The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Medical Negligence - It is a case of unreasonable decision of the Operating Surgeon to operate and not a case of “bit negligent” so as to absolve the surgeon from the allegation of medical negligence.

Case Number : C.A. No. 4619 of 2019 10-05-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : M.A. Chinnasamy
Bench : Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta

13. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. v. D.S. Dhanda

The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - the complainant is entitled to interest from the Builder for not handing over possession as projected as is offered by it but it is not a case to award special punitive damages as the one of the causes for late delivery of possession was beyond the control of the Builder.

Case Number : C.A. No. 4910 - 4941 of 2019 10-05-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Karanjawala & Co. 
Bench : Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta

14. The State of Jharkhand v. M/s. Akash Coke Industries Pvt. Ltd.

The Constitution of India, 1949 - Article 286 - The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - Section 15 (b) - The Bihar Sales Tax Rule, 1983 - Rules 35(4) and 35(6) read with Rule 34(2) - Restrictions as to imposition of tax on the sale or purchase of goods - Certain goods to be of special importance in inter-State trade or commerce - Restrictions and conditions in regard to tax on sale or purchase of declared goods within a State - Determination of the Refund.

Case Number : C.A. No. 4949 of 2019 10-05-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Devashish Bharuka
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph

15. Pramod Kumar v. Zalak Singh

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order II Rule 2 - Suit to include the whole claim - the embargo in Order II Rule 2 will arise only if the claim, which is omitted or relinquished and the reliefs which are omitted and not claimed, arise from one cause of action. If there is more than one cause of action, Order II Rule 2 will not apply.

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order II Rule 2 - Suit to include the whole claim - Suit for setting aside the Sale Deeds - the period of limitation as far as the second sale deed is different from the period of limitation as far as the first sale deed is concerned - Held, this is a case where the plaintiff ought to have included relief in the form of setting aside the second sale deed also - this is not a case where the second sale deed had not been executed when the plaintiff instituted the first suit - the fact that at the time when the first suit was filed even though the second alienation could be challenged and it stemmed from one single cause of action and not two different causes of action, the mere fact that a different period of limitation is provided, cannot stand in the way of the bar under Order II Rule 2 - That on the same cause of action, the plaintiffs having omitted to sue in respect of the sale deed in question, bar under Order II Rule 2 would apply.


The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order II Rule 2 - Suit to include the whole claim - Order II Rule 2(1) provides that a plaintiff is to include the whole of the claim, which he is entitled to make, in respect of the cause of action. However, it is open to him to relinquish any portion of the claim. Order II Rule 2 provides for the consequences of relinquishment of a part of a claim and also the consequences of omitting a part of the claim. It declares that if a plaintiff omits to sue or relinquishes intentionally any portion of his claim, he shall be barred from suing on that portion so omitted or relinquished. Order II Rule 2(3), however, deals with the effect of omission to sue for all or any of the reliefs in respect of the same cause of action. The consequences of such omission will be to precluded plaintiff from suing for any relief which is so omitted. The only exception is when he obtains leave of the Court.

Case Number : C.A. No. 1055 of 2019 10-05-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Garvesh Kabra
Respondent's Advocate : Shirish K. Deshpande
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph

Post a Comment

Previous Post Next Post