12 Important Supreme Court Judgments Pronounced Today [Monday, July 1, 2019]

1. Doddamuniyappa (dead) Through Lrs. v. Muniswamy

Joint Family Property - Property inherited from the father by his sons becomes joint family property in the hands of the sons.

Case Number : C.A. No. 7141 of 2008 01-07-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : P.R. Ramasesh
Respondent's Advocate : S.N. Bhat
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi


2. Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Limited v. Reynders Label Printing India Private Limited

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 11(5), 11(9) and 11(12)(a) - Appointment of a Sole Arbitrator - When a non-­signatory to an arbitration agreement can be impleaded and subjected to arbitration proceedings ?



Case Number : Arbit. Case (c) No. 65 of 2016 01-07-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Ashwani Kumar
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi

3. Asim Shariff v. National Investigation Agency

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 227 and 228 - Scope of - Discharge - Ambit and scope of the powers of the Court at the time of considering the discharge application.

The Judge while considering the question of framing charge under Section 227 CrPC in sessions cases(which is akin to Section 239 CrPC pertaining to warrant cases) has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out; where the material placed before the Court discloses grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in framing the charge; by and large if two views are possible and one of them giving rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion against the accused, the trial Judge will be justified in discharging him. It is thus clear that while examining the discharge application filed under Section 227 CrPC, it is expected from the trial Judge to exercise its judicial mind to determine as to whether a case for trial has been made out or not. It is true that in such proceedings, the Court is not supposed to hold a mini trial by marshalling the evidence on record.



Case Number : Crl.A. No. 949 of 2019 01-07-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Kamini Jaiswal
Respondent's Advocate : B.V. Balaram Das
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi

4. The Executive Engineer, M.I.W. v. Vitthal Damodar Patil

The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 18 - Contentions raised by the appellant for the first time in the present appeal. That ought to have been done by the High Court which was considering the first appeal, both on facts and on law.

Case Number : C.A. No. 5125 of 2019 01-07-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi

5. Satvinder Singh @ Satvinder Singh Saluja v. The State of Bihar

The Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016 - Section 53 (a) - Penalty for consumption of liquor in public place.

When the word 'consumes' is followed by liquor, the action denoted by verb passes over from the doer to object i.e. liquor to constitute the offences within the meaning of Section 53(a). The action of consumption of liquor has to happen within the State of Bihar. A person who consumes liquor in a different State cannot be fastened with a penalty under Section 53(a) unless there is some evidence to prove that consumption of liquor by the accused has taken place in the State of Bihar. Now as per Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 another category of offences which has been included in Section 37 is Section 37 sub­section (b) which “is found drunk or in a state of drunkenness at any place; or”, thus, as per Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 even a person consumes liquor outside the State of Bihar and enter into the territory of Bihar and is found drunk or in a state of drunkenness, he can be charged with offences under Section 37(b). But no offence as now contemplated by Section 37(b) was provided for in Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016, thus, the consumption of liquor has to be in the State of Bihar.



Case Number : Crl.A. No. 951 of 2019 01-07-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Rahul Shyam Bhandari
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph

6. The State of Tamil Nadu v. Dr. Vasanthi Veerasekaran

The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Acquired for the purpose of implementing the “Mass Rapid Transport System” Railway Project.

Case Number : C.A. No. 8626 of 2009 01-07-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : K.V. Vijayakumar
Respondent's Advocate : R. Ayyam Perumal
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi

7. R.S. Anjayya Gupta v. Thippaiah Setty

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 96 - Purport of power of the appellate court coupled with its duty.

Case Number : C.A. No. 7418 of 2009 01-07-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Shailesh Madiyal
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari

8. Vasavi Engineering College Parents Association v. The State of Telangana

If a statutory body has not exercised jurisdiction properly the only option is to remand the matter for fresh consideration and not to usurp the powers of the authority.

Judicial Restraint - The need for judicial restraint in economic and financial matters based on reports of domain experts.

In the context of Indian jurisprudence, the Constitution is the supreme law. All executive or legislative actions have to be tested on the anvil of the same. Such actions will have to draw their sustenance as also their boundaries under the same. Any action falling foul of the constitutional guarantees will call for corrective action in judicial review to ensure adherence to the constitutional ethos. But so long as the fabric of the constitutional ethos is not set asunder, the court will have to exercise restraint, more particularly in matters concerning domain experts, else the risk of justice being based on individual perceptions which may render myths as realities inconsistent with the constitutional ethos. Courts often adjudicate disputes that raise the question of how strictly should they scrutinise executive or legislative action. Therefore, courts have identified certain questions as being inappropriate for judicial resolution or have refused on competency grounds to substitute their judgement for that of another person on a particular matter.



Case Number : C.A. No. 5133 of 2019 01-07-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : D. Mahesh Babu
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha

9. Madhav Prasad Aggarwal v. Axis Bank Ltd.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - O. 7 R. 11 (a) to (f) - the plaint as presented must proceed as a whole or can be rejected as a whole but not in part.

Case Number : C.A. No. 5126 of 2019 01-07-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Parekh & Co.
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari

10. Srilekha Sentikumar v. Deputy Superintendent of Police CBI ACB, Chennai

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 120B - The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 12 and 13 - The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 239 - Discharge - Whether the Courts below were justified in dismissing the appellant's application filed by her under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. praying for her discharge from the case. Held, the issues urged by the appellant and the same having been refuted by the respondent are such that they can be decided more appropriately and properly during trial after evidence is adduced by the parties rather than at the time of deciding the application made under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C.



Case Number : Crl.A. No. 948 of 2019 01-07-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Amit Anand Tiwari
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari

11. Parminder Singh v. New India Assurance Company Ltd.

Motor Accident Claims - If the driver of the offending vehicle does not possess a valid driving license, the principle of ‘pay and recover’ can be ordered to direct the insurance company to the pay the victim, and then recover the amount from the owner of the offending vehicle.

Case Number : C.A. No. 5123 of 2019 01-07-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Varinder Kumar Sharma
Bench : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indu Malhotra, Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah

12. Arshnoor Singh v. Harpal Kaur

Property Law - The non­-production of the Jamabandis would make no difference, as it did not affect the title/ownership of the suit property.

Case Number : C.A. No. 5124 of 2019 01-07-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Ankit Swarup
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indu Malhotra, 
Judgment By : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indu Malhotra

Post a Comment

Previous Post Next Post