Supreme Court Weekly Digest May 1 - 10, 2019

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. Arun Mishra & Navin Sinha, JJ. Rakesh Tiwari, Advocate v. Alok Pandey, CJM, Crl.A. No. 1223 of 2015 10-05-2019

Advocate - 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. Arun Mishra & Navin Sinha, JJ. Rakesh Tiwari, Advocate v. Alok Pandey, CJM, Crl.A. No. 1223 of 2015 10-05-2019

Appeal to Supreme Court - Concurrent findings of three courts - Since all the three Courts have concurrently and rightly concluded in favour of the plaintiffs and consequently decreed O.S. No. 388 of 1986, no interference is called for. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. N.V. Ramana & Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, JJ. Jaswant Singh v. Jaspal Singh, C.A. No. 5962 of 2010 07-05-2019 

Association - the right to form an Association included the right to its continuance and any law altering the composition of the Association compulsorily will be a breach of the right to form the Association. A.M. Khanwilkar & Ajay Rastogi, JJ. Maharashtra Archery Association v. Rahul Mehra, 2019 (7) SCALE 223 S.L.P. (C) No. 29577 of 2017 01-05-2019



Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950 - S. 44 - Power of transfer of immovable property of a religious trust after taking previous sanction from the Board - the High Court has completely misdirected itself in directing the Central Bureau of Investigation to take over investigation in a matter which relates to the rights of the trustees to sell property of a religious Trust or Deity, giving rise to civil dispute. D.Y. Chandrachud & Hemant Gupta, JJ. Shree Shree Ram Janki Ji Asthan Tapovan Mandir v. The State of Jharkhand, JT 2019 (5) SC 42 : 2019 (7) SCALE 215 C.A. No. 4003 of 2019 01-05-2019 



CBI Investigation - the public order (Entry 1) and the police (Entry 2) is a State subject falling in List II of the VII Schedule of the Constitution. It is a primary responsibility of the investigating agency of the State Police to investigate all offences which are committed within its jurisdiction. The investigations can be entrusted to Central Bureau of Investigation on satisfaction of the conditions as specified therein only in exceptional circumstances. Such power cannot and should not be exercised in a routine manner without examining the complexities, nature of offence and some time the tardy progress in the investigations involving high officials of the State investigating agency itself. D.Y. Chandrachud & Hemant Gupta, JJ. Shree Shree Ram Janki Ji Asthan Tapovan Mandir v. The State of Jharkhand, JT 2019 (5) SC 42 : 2019 (7) SCALE 215 C.A. No. 4003 of 2019 01-05-2019

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - O. 43 R. 1(d) - Appeal - Matrimonial Dispute - The appellant is the second wife of respondent No.1 (husband) - After passing of the ex parte decree for dissolution of marriage of respondent No.1 with respondent No.2 and expiry of period of limitation for filing appeal, respondent No.1 (husband) entered into matrimony with appellant - Respondent No.2 (first wife of respondent No.1) filed the appeal of which the appellant had no knowledge, but the fact of respondent No.1 having married the appellant was indeed stated before the High Court - When respondent No.1 stated that she was having no problem with the appellant, the High Court set aside the ex parte decree and directed that, “the parties shall live together as husband and wife” - the appellant was not made a party to the appeal and nor she was heard by the High Court - the High Court, even after taking note of the factum of the marriage of the appellant with respondent No.1, has not adverted to the consequences thereof and has given such directions, which may not be capable of due performance - In such a situation, where the impugned order was passed without hearing the appellant and not issuing any notice of the appeal to her and yet giving such directions, which may not be capable of being carried out, the impugned order is wholly without jurisdiction and legally unsustainable and it has to be set aside. Abhay Manohar Sapre & Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ. Karuna Kansal v. Hemant Kansal, C.A. No. 4847 - 4848 of 2019 09-05-2019 

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - O. II R. 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. Ashok Bhushan & K.M. Joseph, JJ. Pramod Kumar v. Zalak Singh, C.A. No. 1055 of 2019 10-05-2019 

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - O. II R. 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. Ashok Bhushan & K.M. Joseph, JJ. Pramod Kumar v. Zalak Singh, C.A. No. 1055 of 2019 10-05-2019 

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - O. II R. 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. Ashok Bhushan & K.M. Joseph, JJ. Pramod Kumar v. Zalak Singh, C.A. No. 1055 of 2019 10-05-2019 

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - O. XLI R. 27 - A party can produce additional evidence at the appellate stage, if it establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within its knowledge, or could not even after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by it at the time when the decree appealed against was passed. U.U. Lalit & Indu Malhotra, JJ. Jiten K. Ajmera v. M/s Tejas Co Operative Housing Society, C.A. No. 4628 of 2019 06-05-2019 

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - O. XLI R. 27 - Consumer Complaint - Application for permission to file additional documents after the filing of the Appeal before the State Commission - Held, the State Commission was in error by rejecting the Application by merely stating that the documents are “not necessary”. The said Order is an unreasoned one. The State Commission must have taken a holistic view of the matter. U.U. Lalit & Indu Malhotra, JJ. Jiten K. Ajmera v. M/s Tejas Co Operative Housing Society, C.A. No. 4628 of 2019 06-05-2019 

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - O. XXII R. 3 & O. XXII R. 4 - Procedure in case of death of one of several plaintiffs or of sole plaintiff - Procedure in case of death of one of several defendants or of sole defendant - Discussed. Ashok Bhushan & K.M. Joseph, JJ. Hemareddi (d) Through Lrs. v. Ramachandra Yallappa Hosmani, C.A. No. 4103 of 2008 07-05-2019 

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - S. 100 - Second Appeal - Mandatory Requirements of. Abhay Manohar Sapre & Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ. Arulmighu Nellukadai Mariamman Tirukkoil v. Tamilarasi (dead) By Lrs., C.A. No. 4666 of 2019 07-05-2019 

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - S. 100 - Second Appeal - While passing the impugned Judgment and Order, the High Court has re­appreciated the entire evidence on record as if the High Court was deciding the first appeal. By the impugned Judgment and Order, while exercising the powers under Section 100 of the CPC and on reappreciation of entire evidence on record, the High Court has set aside the findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below on blending of the suit properties with the joint family properties. The same is wholly impermissible. So far as the facts are concerned, the First Appellate Court is the final court and unless and until the findings of facts recorded by the Courts below are found to be manifestly perverse and/or contrary to the evidence on record, the High Court would not be justified in setting aside the findings of facts recorded by the Courts below which were on appreciation of evidence on record. It is not permissible for the High Court to re­appreciate the entire evidence on record and come to its own finding when the findings recorded by the Courts below, more particularly, the First Appellate Court are on appreciation of evidence. Therefore, the procedure adopted by the High Court while deciding the Second Appeals, is beyond the scope and ambit of exercise of its powers under Section 100 of the CPC. L. Nageswara Rao & M.R. Shah, JJ. S. Subramanian v. S. Ramasamy, 2019 (7) SCALE 254 C.A. No. 4536 - 4537 of 2019 01-05-2019 

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - S. 96 - Appeal from original decree - Condonation of Delay - An appeal under Section 96 CPC is a statutory right. Generally, delays in preferring appeals are required to be condoned, in the interest of justice, where there is no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide is imputable to the party seeking condonation of delay. R. Banumathi & R. Subhash Reddy, JJ. Bhivchandra Shankar More v. Balu Gangaram More, C.A. No. 4669 of 2019 07-05-2019 



Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - S. 96 - O. IX R. 13 - Appeal from original decree - Setting aside decree ex parte against defendant - Condonation of Delay - The right of appeal under Section 96(2) CPC is a statutory right and the defendant cannot be deprived of the statutory right of appeal merely on the ground that the application filed by him under Order IX Rule 13 CPC has been dismissed. R. Banumathi & R. Subhash Reddy, JJ. Bhivchandra Shankar More v. Balu Gangaram More, C.A. No. 4669 of 2019 07-05-2019 

Companies Act, 1956 - Ss. 235, 237, 247, 250, 397, 398, 402 & 403 - Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 379, 403 & 411 r/w. 120B - Whether the allegations in the complaint and the statement of the complainant and other materials before the Magistrate were sufficient enough to constitute prima-facie case to justify the Magistrate’s satisfaction that there were sufficient grounds for proceeding against the respondents-accused and whether there was application of mind by the learned Magistrate in taking cognizance of the offences and issuing process to the respondents. R. Banumathi & R. Subhash Reddy, JJ. Birla Corporation Ltd. v. Adventz Investments and Holdings Ltd., Crl. A. No. 875 of 2019 09-05-2019 

Companies Act, 1956 - Ss. 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. Arun Mishra & Indira Banerjee, JJ. Ram Parshotam Mittal v. Hotel Queen Road Pvt. Ltd., C.A. No. 3934 of 2017 10-05-2019 

Constitution of India - Art. 141 - Special Leave Petition - the dismissal of a S.L.P. in limine simply implies that the case before this Court was not considered worthy of examination for a reason, which may be other than the merits of the case. Such in limine dismissal at the threshold without giving any detailed reasons, does not constitute any declaration of law or a binding precedent. U.U. Lalit & Indu Malhotra, JJ. State of Odisha v. Dhirendra Sundar Das, C.A. No. 4646 of 2019 06-05-2019 

Constitution of India - Art. 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. D.Y. Chandrachud & Hemant Gupta, JJ. B.K. Pavitra v. Union of India, M.A. No. 1151 of 2018 10-05-2019 

Constitution of India - Article 21A - Right of Children to Free and Compulsion Education Act, 2009 - Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2010 - Rule 20 - 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 (Contract) Teachers - Salary and allowances and conditions of service of teachers - The teachers must be entitled to decent emoluments. Abhay Manohar Sapre & Uday Umesh Lalit, JJ. State of Bihar v. The Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee Munger, C.A. No. 4862 of 2019 10-05-2019 

Constitution of India, 1949 - Article 286 - Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - Section 15 (b) - 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. Ranjan Gogoi (CJI), Sanjay Kishan Kaul & K.M. Joseph, JJ. State of Jharkhand v. M/s. Akash Coke Industries Pvt. Ltd., C.A. No. 4949 of 2019 10-05-2019 

Consumer Protection Act, 1985 - S. 23 - The grievance of the Complainant is that the Insurance Company has appointed one surveyor after another - Held, there was no valid reason for the Insurance Company not to accept the report of the surveyor nor there is any proof that such report is arbitrary & excessive. There are no cogent reasons to appoint Surveyors time and again till such time one Surveyor gives a report which could satisfy the interest of the Insurance Company. D.Y. Chandrachud & Hemant Gupta, JJ. M/s New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. M/s Luxra Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., C.A. No. 9668 of 2014 01-05-2019 

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. D.Y. Chandrachud & Hemant Gupta, JJ. Nand Kishore Prasad v. Mohib Hamidi, C.A. No. 4619 of 2019 10-05-2019 

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - S. 21 (b) - a Revision Petition was not maintainable against the Order passed by the State Commission in an appeal arising out of execution proceedings. U.U. Lalit & Indu Malhotra, JJ. Karnataka Housing Board v. K.A. Nagamani, C.A. No. 4631 of 2019 06-05-2019 



Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - S. 25 (3) - Enforcement of orders of the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission - An Order passed for enforcement, would not be an order in the ‘consumer dispute’ since it stands finally decided by the appellate forum, which has conclusively determined the rights and obligations of the parties. U.U. Lalit & Indu Malhotra, JJ. Karnataka Housing Board v. K.A. Nagamani, C.A. No. 4631 of 2019 06-05-2019 

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. Arun Mishra & Uday Umesh Lalit, JJ. Anjum Hussain v. Intellicity Business Park Pvt. Ltd., C.A. No. 1676 of 2019 10-05-2019 

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Ss. 21 (b) and 25 (3) - Jurisdiction of the National Commission - Revision - “Appellate Jurisdiction” and “Revisional Jurisdiction” - Distinction between. U.U. Lalit & Indu Malhotra, JJ. Karnataka Housing Board v. K.A. Nagamani, C.A. No. 4631 of 2019 06-05-2019 

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. D.Y. Chandrachud & Hemant Gupta, JJ. DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. v. D.S. Dhanda, C.A. No. 4910 - 4941 of 2019 10-05-2019 

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - S. 202 - The object of investigation under Section 202 Cr.P.C. is “for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding”. R. Banumathi & R. Subhash Reddy, JJ. Birla Corporation Ltd. v. Adventz Investments and Holdings Ltd., Crl. A. No. 875 of 2019 09-05-2019 

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - S. 319 - Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 148, 149, 323, 324, 325, 302, 307 & 506 - the persons against whom no charge­sheet is filed can be summoned to face the trial. L. Nageswara Rao & M.R. Shah, JJ. Rajesh v. State of Haryana, 2019 (7) SCALE 168 Crl.A. No. 813 of 2019 01-05-2019 

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - S. 319 - Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence - 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 - 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 - What are the guidelines that the competent court must follow while exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. - 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. N.V. Ramana & Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, JJ. Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab, Crl.A. No. 885 of 2019 10-05-2019

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Ss. 200 & 202 - Complaint - Enquiry - issuance of process the allegations in the complaint and complainant’s statement and other materials must show that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. R. Banumathi & R. Subhash Reddy, JJ. Birla Corporation Ltd. v. Adventz Investments and Holdings Ltd. Crl. A. No. 875 of 2019 09-05-2019 

Custody of the Child – Removed from foreign countries and brought to India - there is a significant difference in so far the children removed from foreign countries and brought into India. R. Banumathi & R. Subhash Reddy, JJ. Tejaswini Gaud v. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari, Crl.A. No. 838 of 2019 06-05-2019 

Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1961 - S. 3(f) - The term “preference” mentioned in the advertisement cannot be interpreted to mean that merely because a candidate may have had the requisite experience of testing in a research and development laboratory he/she possessed the essential eligibility and had a preferential right to be considered for appointment. Arun Mishra & Navin Sinha, JJ. Maharashtra Public Service Commission v. Sandeep Shriram Warade, JT 2019 (5) SC 110 : 2019 (7) SCALE 286 C.A. No. 4597 of 2019 03-05-2019 



Electricity Law - Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2001 - Reg. 1.13(a) - Central Electricity Regulatory Commission [CERC] - Issue relating to capitalization of Foreign Exchange Rate Variation [FERV] - Apportionment of FERV into debt and equity after FERV has been calculated and added to capital cost - the present question regarding the apportionment of FERV between debt and equity is not a question of law, much less a substantial question of law - Noting the premise on which the Act was enacted and the fact that the Tariff Regulations, 2001 prescribed under the aegis of this Act do not provide for apportionment of FERV in a particular debt­-equity ratio, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. N.V. Ramana & Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, JJ. Power Grid Corporation of India v. Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Co. Ltd., C.A. No. 684 of 2007 09-05-2019 

School Education (Group C) State Cadre Service Rules, 2012 (Haryana) - Rule 9 (5) - Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) and Classical & Vernacular (C&V) Cadre Teachers - The TGTs are engaged to provide elementary education. The purpose of the Rules is better served by ensuring education to the students of primary schools in the State by Trained Graduate Teachers rather than C&V Teachers who were being engaged earlier. It is upgradation of qualification of teachers to be engaged for teaching the students of the primary schools for appointment as TGTs. Therefore, the interpretation which sub serves cause of education is to be preferred as against the interpretation leading to anomalous result, more so it is not warranted by the cumulative reading of the 2012 Rules. D.Y. Chandrachud & Hemant Gupta, JJ. State of Haryana v. Sandeep Singh, C.A. No. 4546 of 2019 06-05-2019 

Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 - Ss. 6 & 13 - Natural Guardian - Welfare of the minor child is the paramount consideration. R. Banumathi & R. Subhash Reddy, JJ. Tejaswini Gaud v. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari, Crl.A. No. 838 of 2019 06-05-2019 

Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 - S. 6 & 13 - The welfare of the child has to be determined owing to the facts and circumstances of each case and the court cannot take a pedantic approach. R. Banumathi & R. Subhash Reddy, JJ. Tejaswini Gaud v. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari, Crl.A. No. 838 of 2019 06-05-2019

Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 - Ss. 6 & 13 - Maintainability of the writ of habeas corpus - It is only in exceptional cases, the rights of the parties to the custody of the minor will be determined in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction on a petition for habeas corpus. R. Banumathi & R. Subhash Reddy, JJ. Tejaswini Gaud v. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari, Crl.A. No. 838 of 2019 06-05-2019 

Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 - Ss. 6 & 13 - Maintainability of the writ of habeas corpus - In child custody matters, the writ of habeas corpus is maintainable where it is proved that the detention of a minor child by a parent or others was illegal and without any authority of law. R. Banumathi & R. Subhash Reddy, JJ. Tejaswini Gaud v. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari, Crl.A. No. 838 of 2019 06-05-2019 

Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 - Ss. 6 & 13 - Maintainability of the writ of habeas corpus - The detention of a minor by a person who is not entitled to his legal custody is treated as equivalent to illegal detention for the purpose of granting writ, directing custody of the minor child. R. Banumathi & R. Subhash Reddy, JJ. Tejaswini Gaud v. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari, Crl.A. No. 838 of 2019 06-05-2019 

Hindu Religious endowment charitable Act, 1959 - Sections 69, 70 - Appeal to the Commissioner - Suits and Appeals - Whether the Commissioner while hearing the appeal under Section 69 of Act, 1959, is a Court ? Whether applicability of Section 29(2) of Limitation Act is with regard to different limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application to be filed only in a Court or Section 29(2) can be pressed in service with regard to filing of a suit, appeal or application before statutory authorities and tribunals provided in Special or Local Laws? Whether the Commissioner while hearing the appeal under Section 69 of Act 1959 is entitled to condone a delay in filing an appeal applying the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963? Whether the statutory scheme of Act 1959 indicate that Section 5 of Limitation Act is applicable to proceedings before its authorities? Ashok Bhushan & K.M. Joseph, JJ. Ganesan Rep By Its Power Agent G. Rukmani Ganesan v. The Commissioner The Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious And Charitable Endowments Board, C.A. No. 4582 of 2019 03-05-2019 

Income Tax Act, 1961 - S. 260­A - Substantial Question(s) of Law - the High Court did not frame any question as required under Section 260­A (3) of the Act - The appeals are remanded to the High Court for hearing afresh only after framing appropriate substantial question(s) of law as required under Section 260­ A(3) of the Act. Abhay Manohar Sapre & Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ. Ryatar Sahakari Sakkarre Karkhane Niyamit v. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax C 1, JT 2019 (5) SC 9 : 2019 (7) SCALE 203 C.A. No. 4515 - 4524 of 2019 01-05-2019 

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - S. 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. R. Banumathi & R. Subhash Reddy, JJ. Superintending Engineer TWAD Board v. M. Natesan, C.A. No. 4875 - 4884 of 2019 10-05-2019 



Limitation Act, 1908 - S. 5 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - O. IX R. 13 - Setting aside decree ex parte against defendant - Condonation of Delay - "Sufficient Cause" - the time spent in pursuing the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC is to be taken as “sufficient cause” for condoning the delay in filing the first appeal. R. Banumathi & R. Subhash Reddy, JJ. Bhivchandra Shankar More v. Balu Gangaram More, C.A. No. 4669 of 2019 07-05-2019 

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. Ashok Bhushan & K.M. Joseph, JJ. Lber Laloo v. All Dimasa Students Union Hasao District Committee, I.A. Nos. 5051 & 5055 of 2019 10-05-2019 

Municipalities and Panchayats - The conundrum in this appeal is about the inclusion or exclusion of the Member of the House of Parliament representing the Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands, who is also an ex­officio member of the Panchayat Samiti, for reckoning the quorum of a special meeting regarding motion of no confidence against the Pramukh of the Little Andaman Panchayat Samiti and also whether he/she can exercise 2 his/her vote on the ‘No Confidence Motion’ within the meaning of the provisions of Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Panchayats) Regulation, 1994 and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Panchayats Administration Rules) 1997. A.M. Khanwilkar & Ajay Rastogi, JJ. Seema Sarkar v. Executive Officer, 2019 (7) SCALE 235 C.A. No. 4547 of 2019 01-05-2019 

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 - Ss. 21, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29 & 30 - Arms Act, 1959 - S. 25­A -Information Technology Act, 2000 - S. 66. N.V. Ramana & Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, JJ. Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab, Crl.A. No. 885 of 2019 10-05-2019

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 32B - Factors to be taken into account for imposing higher than the minimum punishment - Interpretation of. Ashok Bhushan & K.M. Joseph, JJ. Rafiq Qureshi v. Narcotic Control Bureau Eastern Zonal Unit, Crl.A. No. 567 of 2019 07-05-2019 

Penal Code, 1860 - Exception 4 to Section 300 - Unless it is barbaric, torturous and brutal, strangulation cannot be said to be an act of extreme cruelty for denying the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. R. Banumathi & R. Subhash Reddy, JJ. Rambir v. State of NCT Delhi, Crl.A. No. 839 of 2019 06-05-2019 

Penal Code, 1860 - S. 302 - Murder - Witness - Close Relative - The mere fact that witness is related does not lead to inference that such witness is an interested witness. Ashok Bhushan & K.M. Joseph, JJ. Shio Shankar Dubey v. State of Bihar, Crl.A. No. 1617 of 2014 09-05-2019 

Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 302 r/w. 34 & S. 307 r/w. 34 IPC - Arms Act, 1959 - S. 25(c) - There was darkness at the time and the place of occurrence making it difficult for the witnesses to identify the assailants. The evidence of eye-witnesses are contradictory to each other as to the firing of the fatal blow. The guilt of the accused has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and the benefit has to be given to the accused. R. Banumathi & S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ. Ashoksinh Jayendrasinh v. State of Gujarat, Crl.A. No. 1123 of 2010 07-05-2019 

Penal Code, 1860 - S. 380 - Theft - Whether temporary removal of the documents and using them in the litigations pending between the parties would amount to theft warranting lodging of a criminal complaint ? Held, In using the documents, when there is no dishonest intention to cause “wrongful loss” to the complainant and “wrongful gain” to the respondents, it cannot be said that the ingredients of theft are made out. R. Banumathi & R. Subhash Reddy, JJ. Birla Corporation Ltd. v. Adventz Investments and Holdings Ltd., Crl. A. No. 875 of 2019 09-05-2019 

Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 193, 466, 468 & 471 - Even assuming that the version in the vakalatnama is wrong, mere incorrect statement in the vakalatnama would not amount to create a forged document and it cannot be the reason for exercising the jurisdiction under Section 340 Cr.P.C. for issuance of direction to lodge the criminal complaint. R. Banumathi & S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ. Sasikala Pushpa v. State of Tamil Nadu, Crl.A. No. 855 of 2019 07-05-2019 



Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 22 & 29 - “document” - “moveable property” - "theft" - the “document” as defined in Section 29 IPC is a “moveable property” within the meaning of Section 22 IPC which can be the subject matter of theft. The information contained thereon in the documents would also fall within the purview of the “corporeal property” and can be the subject matter of the theft. R. Banumathi & R. Subhash Reddy, JJ. Birla Corporation Ltd. v. Adventz Investments and Holdings Ltd., Crl. A. No. 875 of 2019 09-05-2019 

Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 294 & 506-B - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - S. 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. Arun Mishra & Uday Umesh Lalit, JJ. Narad Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh, Crl.A. No. 883 of 2019 10-05-2019 

Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 302, 325, 326, 331, 352 r/w. 34 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - S. 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. Abhay Manohar Sapre & Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ. Jitender Kumar @jitender Singh v. State of Bihar, Crl.A. No. 888 of 2019 10-05-2019 

Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 320 & 326 - Grievous Hurt - Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means - Acid Attack - the act of causing grievous hurt by use of acid, by its very nature, is a gruesome and horrendous one, which, apart from causing severe bodily pain, leaves the scars and untold permanent miseries for the victim. Abhay Manohar Sapre & Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ. Omanakuttan v. State of Kerala, Crl.A. No. 873 of 2019 09-05-2019

Practice & Procedure - When the order, which is the foundation for filing the complaint in question itself is sub judice, the appellant is required to await the final outcome of the criminal appeal filed by the accused persons. Abhay Manohar Sapre & Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ. Hanumant Dinkar Arjun v. Suresh R. Andhare, JT 2019 (5) SC 95 Crl.A. No. 25 of 2009 03-05-2019

Pre­conception and Pre­natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 - The instant writ petition has been filed by the Federation of Obstetrics and Gynaecological Societies of India (FOGSI) highlighting the issues and problems affecting the practice of obstetricians and gynaecologists across the country under the Act and challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 23(1) and 23(2) of the Act and seeking direction in the nature of certiorari / mandamus for decriminalising anomalies in paperwork/record keeping/clerical errors in regard of the provisions of the Act for being violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. The Society is the apex body of obstetricians and gynaecologists of the country and is concerned for the welfare of its members. Arun Mishra & Navin Sinha, JJ. Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecological Societies of India (FOGSI) Secretary General v. Union of India, 2019 (7) SCALE 314 W.P. (C) No. 129 of 2017 03-05-2019

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - S. 17 - The truth and veracity of the authorisation order not being in issue, the failure to file it along with the charge­sheet was an omission constituting a procedural lapse only. Arun Mishra & Navin Sinha, JJ. State Rep By Inspector of Police Central Bureau of Investigation v. M. Subrahmanyam, Crl.A. No. 853 of 2019 07-05-2019 

Property Law - Suit for possession of the land and Declaration - Exchange of the property of the School - The exchange was illegal and unauthorized, since there was no Resolution passed by the Education Society. U.U. Lalit & Indu Malhotra, JJ. Randhir Kaur (d) through her Lrs. v. Balwinder Kaur, C.A. No. 4629 - 4630 of 2019 06-05-2019 

Service Law - Recruitment Process - Orissa Administrative Service, Class II (Recruitment) Rules, 1978 - Orissa Administrative Service, Class – II (Appointment by Promotion and Selection) Regulations, 1978 - Orissa Administrative Services (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2011 - Orissa Revenue Service (Recruitment) Rules, 2011. Uday Umesh Lalit & Indu Malhotra, JJ. State of Odisha v. Dhirendra Sundar Das, C.A. No. 4646 of 2019 06-05-2019

Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 (Andhra Pradesh) - Whether the Authorities and the Courts were justified in holding that the sale deeds in question are null and void because they were executed in contravention of the provisions of the Regulation. Abhay Manohar Sapre & Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ. Bikkina Rama Rao v. The Special Deputy Tahsildar (Tribal Welfare) Kota Ramachandrapuram, C.A. No. 4658 of 2008 03-05-2019

Transfer of Property Act, 1982 - S. 108 - Slum Areas (Improvement, clearance and Re-development) Act, 1971 (Maharashtra) - S. 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. Uday Umesh Lalit & Indu Malhotra, JJ. Kumud W/o Mahadeorao Slunke v. Shri Pandurang Narayan Gandhewar Through Lrs., C.A. No. 4873 of 2019 10-05-2019

Unlawful Activities(Prevention) Act, 1967 - S. 43D(2)(b) - Scope of - The necessary ingredients of the proviso to Section 43D(2)(b) of the UAP Act, 1967 has to be fulfilled for its proper application. These are as under:­ A. It has not been possible to complete the investigation within the period of 90 days. B. A report to be submitted by the Public Prosecutor. C. Said report indicating the progress of investigation and the specific reasons for detention of the accused beyond the period of 90 days. D. Satisfaction of the Court in respect of the report of the Public Prosecutor. A.M. Khanwilkar & Ajay Rastogi, JJ. State by the Superintendent of Police v. Shakul Hammed, Crl.A. No. 863 - 864 of 2019 07-05-2019 



UP Minority Welfare Department Gazetted Officers Service Rules 2001 - Rules 3 (h), 3 (k) and 5 - ‘Member of the Service’ - ‘Substantive Appointment’ - Though Rules 2001 is silent about the appointment of the appellants prior to coming into force of 2001 Rules, the appellants having been appointed on the post of District Minority Welfare Officer prior to coming into force of Service Rules 2001, cannot be deprived of their rights of absorption in the Minority Welfare Department. R. Banumathi & R. Subhash Reddy, JJ. Raja Singh v. State of U.P., C.A. No. 4642 of 2019 06-05-2019 

Vakalatnama - A vakalatnama is only a document which authorizes an advocate to appear on behalf of the party and by and large, it has no bearing on the merits of the case. Sasikala Pushpa v. The State of Tamil Nadu, Crl.A. No. 855 of 2019 07-05-2019

Post a Comment

Previous Post Next Post