SUPREME COURT CASE LAWS

Total No. of Cases: 39

2011 SCCL.COM 525(Case No: Criminal Appeal No.1504 with 1505 of 2011) T. C. Thangaraj with P. Suganthi & Another Appellants versus V. Engammal & others Respondents Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 7/29/2011. Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. V. Raveendran and Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. K. Patnaik. Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — section 482 — scope of — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 409, 420, 471 r/w section 34 — complaint registered under — there was no progress in the investigation, however, the complainant had received back the sum of Rs.3 lakh in question — the complainant filed petition on a grievance that she was cheated in a loan transaction of Rs.3 lakh by the three accused persons, was not being investigated properly because one of the accused persons is an Inspector of Police, thus, prayed to entrust the case to the CBI for proper investigation — allowed — hence, the appeals — the Supreme Court opined that it was not the exceptional situations calling for exercise of extra-ordinary power of the High Court to direct investigation into the complaint by the CBI. The High Court should have directed the Superintendent of Police to entrust the investigation to an officer senior in rank to the Inspector of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. and not to the CBI — impugned order of the High Court quashed and the Superintend of Police is directed to entrust the investigation of Crime to a police officer senior in rank to accused — appeals allowed.

2011 SCCL.COM 524(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 1499 OF 2011) Padal Venkata Rama Reddy @ Ramu Appellant(s) versus Kovvuri Satyanarayana Reddy & Ors. Respondent(s) Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 7/29/2011. Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam and Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L. Gokhale. Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — section 482 — inherent powers of High Court — scope of — IPC, 1860 — sections 120-B, 147, 148, 427, 307, 201 r/w section 149 — chargesheet filed against A-1 to A-12 for the commission of offences under — petition filed — to quash the criminal proceedings — allowed — hence, the appeal — whether the High Court was justified in quashing the criminal proceedings against the Respondent Nos. 1-3 (A1-A3) by invoking jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code — no — in a proceeding instituted on a complaint, exercise of inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case in which complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive — the entire complaint, materials collected and stated in the form of chargesheet, statement of witnesses and by conjoint reading of all the materials, it cannot be presumed that there is no legal and acceptable evidence in support of prosecution — the Supreme Court held that the High Court has exceeded its power in quashing the criminal proceedings on the erroneous assumption that the ingredients of the offence alleged by the prosecution has not been made out — impugned order of the High Court set aside and the trial Court is directed to proceed with the case against the respondents in accordance with law — appeal allowed.

2011 SCCL.COM 521(Case No: Civil Appeal No(s). 6058 of 2011) C.C.E., Mangalore Appellant versus M/s. Pals Microsystems Ltd., Mangalore Respondents Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 7/29/2011. Judge(s): Hon'ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave. Subject Index: Central Excise Act & Rules, 1944 — section 11 AC r/w Rule 173 Q — penalty under — shortage of physical stock of Modvatable inputs — show cause notice issued against the respondent-assessee — the Joint Commissioner confirmed the duty demand of Rs.1,91,537/- payable by the respondent-assessee — appeal filed — the Tribunal held that the show cause notice was issued belatedly and that too without prior permission of the Commissioner as per the provisions of Section 11A of the Act. The High Court confirmed the findings of the Tribunal stating that initiation of proceedings against the respondent-assessee was barred by limitation — hence, the appeal — the Department failed to establish that there was any suppression of facts or a fraud on the part of the respondent-assessee — the Supreme Court found that the honest mistake committed in maintenance of stock register etc. was frankly admitted by the Managing Director of the respondent-assessee — judgment of the High Court affirmed as the notice was issued after expiry of the period of limitation — appeal dismissed — no costs.

2011 SCCL.COM 523(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 1489 of 2011) GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. & Anr. Appellants versus State of Madhya Pradesh Respondent Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 7/28/2011. Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam and Hon'ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan. Subject Index: Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 — section 25(3) — application under — the Drug Inspector took a sample of Betnesol tablets manufactured by the appellant-company for the purpose of analysis — Government Analyst declared that the sample was not of “standard quality” as defined under the Act 1940 — the ld. Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons to all accused persons including the appellants — the appellants filed an application under section 25(3) for sending the sample of Betnesol tablets for chemical analysis to the Director, Central Drugs Laboratory — rejected — hence, the appeal — the appellants did not express an intention to adduce evidence to controvert the analyst report within the statutory limitation period of 28 days. Even otherwise, expiry date of the medicine was only after 4 months of submission of the reply by the appellants, and they did not fulfill their burden of expressing intention to adduce evidence in contravention of the report, therefore, held that inordinate delay in launching the criminal prosecution or filing the complaint is thereby of no consequence — order of the High Court upheld — appeal dismissed.

2011 SCCL.COM 520(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 5779 OF 2008) Bihar State Housing Board & Ors. Appellant (s) versus Asha Lata Verma Respondent(s) Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 7/28/2011. Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam and Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L. Gokhale. Subject Index: Re-determination/re-fixation of price — inquiry of the officials of the Board — direction of — in challenge — allotment of flat — possession of the same handed over however, the Board raised a demand of Rs. 3,64,419/- towards outstanding dues against the flat in question — writ petition filed — the learned single Judge quashed the demand notice and directed the Board to grant permission for transfer of the flat in favour of daughter-in-law of the respondent and further directed the vigilance Department to institute a case against the Board and to enquire into the activities of the officials and also to initiate enquiry into the assets and properties of such officials of the Board — no specific complaint made either by the writ petitioner or anyone pointing mismanagement in the affairs of the Board, therefore, in the absence of any specific claim/complaint furnished with required details, the learned single Judge was not justified in directing the Vigilance Department for roving inquiry into the affairs of the Board — the order of the learned single Judge relating to the relief granted to the respondent confirmed, while, all other directions relating to the Board and its officials set aside — appeal allowed — no costs.

2011 SCCL.COM 519(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 6014 OF 2011) The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Appellant versus M. Prabhakar Rao Respondent Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 7/28/2011. Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. V. Raveendran and Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Patnaik. Subject Index: Back wages — rejection of — the respondent was working as a Bill Collector and was placed under suspension on the charge of accepting illegal gratification, however, the respondent was acquitted by the trial Court — the competent authority revoked the suspension of the respondent and reinstated him in service but rejected his back-wages for the suspension period — challenged — the Tribunal set aside the order of the competent authority and declared that the respondent was entitled for treating the period of suspension as on duty and for release of all consequential benefits. The High Court affirmed the said order — hence, the appeal — PW-1, who made the complaint against the respondent for demanding illegal gratification did not support the prosecution version — the Supreme Court held that even where the employee is acquitted of the charges in the criminal trial for lack of evidence or otherwise, it is for the competent authority to form its opinion whether the suspension of the employee was wholly unjustified and such opinion of the competent authority would not be interfered by the Tribunal or the Court — impugned order of the Tribunal as well of the High Court set aside — appeal allowed — no costs.

2011 SCCL.COM 518(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 6013 OF 2011) Sheelkumar Jain Appellant versus The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. Respondents Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 7/28/2011. Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. V. Raveendran and Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. K. Patnaik. Subject Index: General Insurance (Employees) Pension Scheme, 1995 — benefit of — whether appellant entitled to — to consider — the Division Bench of the High Court held that under Clause 22 of the Pension Scheme, 1995, resignation entails forfeiture of the past services and as the appellant has resigned from service, he cannot be equated with an employee who had taken voluntary retirement from service under Clause 30 of the Pension Scheme, 1995 and the Pension Scheme, 1995 did not apply to the appellant — hence, the appeal — whether the determination of service of the appellant amounts to resignation in terms of Clause 22 of the Pension Scheme, 1995 or amounts to voluntary retirement in terms of Clause 30 of the Pension Scheme, 1995 — the Supreme Court held that Clauses 22 and 30 of the Pension Scheme, 1995 cannot be so construed as to deprive of an employee of an Insurance Company, such as the appellant, who had put in the qualifying service for pension and who had voluntarily given up his service after serving 90 days notice in accordance with sub-clause (1) of Clause 5 of the Scheme, 1976 and after his notice was accepted by the appointing authority — impugned order of the High Court set aside and the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the appellant for pension in accordance with the Pension Scheme, 1995 — appeal allowed — no costs.

2011 SCCL.COM 517(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 1201 OF 2007) Sudarshan Kumar Appellant versus State of Haryana Respondent Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 7/28/2011. Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chandramauli Kr. Prasad. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 306 — abetment to suicide — conviction and sentence for commission of the offence under — the appellant was married to the deceased but she could not conceive. She was physically assaulted, harassed and tormented and ultimately driven to suicide — the appellant underwent about five years rigorous imprisonment out of seven years — conviction order upheld, however, the quantum of sentence reduced to the period already undergone by him — appeal disposed — sentence reduced.

2011 SCCL.COM 516(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 6034 OF 2011) Umerkhan Appellant versus Bismillabi @ Babulal Shaikh & Ors. Respondents Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 7/28/2011. Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. M. Lodha. Subject Index: Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — sections 100, 101 — second appeal — partition and separate possession — suit filed for — the trial Court declared that plaintiff and 2nd defendant were entitled to 1/4th share each and the 1st defendant was entitled to 1/2 share in the suit property. However, the first appellate court reversed the finding of the trial court and held that the 1st defendant became owner of the suit property by adverse possession — second appeal filed — the High Court set aside the judgment and decree of the first appellate court — hence, the appeal — a second appeal is entertainable by the High Court only upon its satisfaction that a substantial question of law is involved in the matter and its formulation thereof — the judgment of the High Court does not indicate that scope of second appeal as provided in Section 100 and Section 101 of the Code was kept in mind while hearing the second appeal — impugned judgment set aside and matter remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law — appeal allowed — no costs.

2011 SCCL.COM 515(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 78 OF 2003 ) State of Punjab Appellant(s) versus Jagtar Singh & Ors. Respondent(s) Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 7/26/2011. Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 302/34, 304-Part I/34 — accused persons, convicted for killing deceased and their sister by strangulation on account of their sexual relations — the trial Court convicted the accused persons under section 302/34 and sentenced each one of them to undergo imprisonment for life — appeal filed — the High Court, on the basis of the post-mortem report concluded that it was deceased Gurnam Singh who himself sneaked into the house of the accused persons and must have had sexual intercourse with Paramjit Kaur and on seeing them in a compromising position, the accused persons must have killed them, therefore, held it a case of grave and sudden provocation and altered the conviction and sentence of the appellants-accused from Section 302/34 IPC to Section 304 Part-I read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years — hence, the appeal — order of the High Court upheld — appeal dismissed.

2011 SCCL.COM 503(Case No:  Civil Appeal No. 5901 of 2011 With C.A. Nos. 5902, 5903, 5904, 5905, 5906, 5907 of 2011) Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Appellant versus Kulsum & others Respondent(s) Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 7/25/2011. Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Verma. Subject Index: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — compensation claim — liability of Insurance Co. to pay — to consider — if insured vehicle is plying under an Agreement of Contract with the Corporation, on the route as per permit granted in favour of the Corporation, in case of an accident, whether the Insurance Company would be liable to pay compensation or would it be the responsibility of the Corporation or the owner — the vehicle was given on hire by the owner of the vehicle together with its existing and running insurance policy and the effective control and command of the bus was that of the Appellant — the Supreme Court held that as the Corporation had become the owner of the vehicle for the specific period, even if, the vehicle having been insured at the instance of original owner, it will be deemed that the vehicle was transferred along with the Insurance Policy in existence to the Corporation and thus Insurance Company would not be able to escape its liability to pay the amount of compensation — appeals allowed.

2011 SCCL.COM 507(Case No: I.A. No(s). 5-6 of 2011 In SLP (Civil) No. 5822 of 2006) Kachchh Jal Sankat Nivaran Samiti & Ors. Petitioner(s)/Applicant(s) versus State of Gujarat & Anr. Respondent(s) Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 7/22/2011. Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chandramauli Kr. Prasad. Subject Index: Allocation of adequate water — in Kuchchh district — application filed for — not a matter of judicial review — the Supreme Court held that it is for the executive authorities to look into the matter of the allocation of water — interlocutory application dismissed.

2011 SCCL.COM 513(Case No: Criminal Appeal No.1428 of 2011) A. Subash Babu Appellant(s) versus State of A.P.& Anr. Respondent(s) Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 7/21/2011. Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.M. Panchal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L. Gokhale. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 498 A, 494, 495, 417, 420 — proceedings initiated against the appellant for commission of offences under — respondent No.2 lodged FIR against the husband/appellant, feeling aggrieved by the acts of the appellant in cheating her, committing bigamy and meting out cruelty to her for dowry, etc. — petition filed — the High Court quashed the proceedings under Section 498A IPC, whereas the proceedings relating to the offences punishable under Sections 494, 495, 417 and 420 IPC ordered to continue against the appellant — hence, the appeal — the appellant having a wife living, married with the respondent no. 2 by concealing from her the fact of former marriage and therefore her complaint against the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 494 and 495 IPC is, maintainable — the Supreme Court held that a person who enters into marital arrangement cannot be allowed to take shelter behind the smoke screen of contention that since there was no valid marriage the question of dowry does not arise — impugned Judgment quashing the complaint filed by the respondent no. 2 for alleged commission of offence by the appellant under Section 498A IPC set aside and the chargesheet under section 498-A restored/revived — appeal dismissed.

2011 SCCL.COM 511(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 925 OF 2007 ) Nikku Khan @ Mohammadeen Appellant(s) versus State of Haryana Respondent(s) Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 7/21/2011. Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur. Subject Index: NDPS Act, 1985 — section 21 — conviction and sentence under — appeal against — police party stopped the accused and on search, heroin weighing 740 grams was recovered from his person — no dispute regarding the recovery of contraband from the accused on the relevant date — quantity of heroin recovered was less than the commercial quantity — conviction of the appellant converted from Section 21(c) to 21(b) of the Act and the sentence reduced from rigorous imprisonment for twelve years to ten years — appeal disposed of.

2011 SCCL.COM 510(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 5416 of 2011 with Civil Appeal No. 5417of 2011) M/s. MSK Projects (I) (JV) Ltd. Appellant versus State of Rajasthan & Anr. Respondents Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 7/21/2011. Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.Sathasivam and Hon'ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan. Subject Index: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — section 37(1)(A) — appeals under — concession agreement was entered into between the parties authorising collection of toll fee by MSK-appellant — dispute arose in collecting the toll fee — arbitration clause invoked — the Arbitral Award was made in favour of MSK-appellant and the State of Rajasthan was directed to pay a sum of Rs.990.52 lacs to MSK-appellant as loss with 18% interest on the ground that there was delay on the part of the State of Rajasthan in issuing the Notification and the State failed to implement the same and the contractor was entitled to collect toll fee even from the vehicles using Bharatpur-Deeg part of the road — challenged — the District Judge set aside the Arbitral Award and held that MSK-appellant was not entitled to any monetary compensation but only entitled to extension of concession period, and the rate of interest was reduced from 18% to 10%. The High Court affirmed the said orders — hence, the appeals — whether it was mandatory/necessary in view of the agreement/contract or on the basis of pre-bid understanding that the State had to issue the notification barring the vehicles through the markets of Bharatpur city — whether the private appellant had a right to collect the toll fee on the patch between Bharatpur - Deeg — the traffic flow on the Bharatpur-Deeg section indicates that this particular patch had also been an integral part of the project, therefore, the users of this patch were required to pay the toll fee — the documents revealed that the phase II work which included repairing, maintenance and second layer of bitumen on the entire road was never executed by the private appellants, thus, the toll fee cannot be collected to recover the amount never spent by the contractor — the Supreme Court held that as it was not the responsibility of the State to establish a police chowki etc. to implement the notification. Therefore, any award in favour of the private appellant in that respect for non-issuance of notification beyond the date of the notification, cannot be held to be justified — directions issued — appeals disposed of.

2011 SCCL.COM 508(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 1429 of 2011) Munilal Mochi Appellant(s) versus State of Bihar & another Respondent(s) Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 7/21/2011. Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam and Hon'ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471(A) — Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 — section 5(2) r/w section 5(1)(d) — conviction and sentence under — misappropriation of Government funds — the High Court upheld the order of conviction passed by the trial Court but reduced the sentence from two and a half years to one and a half years — whether the appellant has made out a case for further reduction in the quantum of sentence — the appellant undergone the ordeal of facing trial anticipating uncertainty about the nature of conviction for a long period of 21 years. The appellant retired from service even before conviction and his appeal was kept pending in the High Court for nearly 6 years — no record to show that the appellant was involved in other criminal case — quantum of sentence modified to the period already undergone in prison as substantive sentence — appeal partly allowed.

2011 SCCL.COM 514(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 5820 of 2011) M/s. SMS Tea Estates Pvt. Ltd. Appellant versus M/s. Chandmari Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. Respondent Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 7/20/2011. Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran and Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Patnaik. Subject Index: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — section 11 — application under — for appointment of Arbitrator — Indian Stamp Act, 1899 — sections 35,40 — issue of stamp duty — to consider — a lease deed executed between the parties under which respondent granted a lease to the appellant for a term of 30 years in regard to the two Tea estates with all appurtenances. The respondent however abruptly and illegally evicted the appellant from the two estates and took over their management — application filed — seeking reference to arbitration — the ld. Chief Justice held that as the lease deed was not registered, no term in the said lease deed could be relied upon for any purpose and therefore clause 35 could not be relied upon for seeking reference to arbitration — hence, the appeal — whether an arbitration agreement contained in an unregistered (but compulsorily registrable) instrument is valid and enforceable — whether an arbitration agreement in an unregistered instrument which is not duly stamped, is valid and enforceable — whether there is an arbitration agreement between the appellant and respondent and whether an Arbitrator should be appointed — an arbitration agreement does not require registration. It is an independent agreement to refer the disputes to arbitration, which is independent of the main contract or instrument. Therefore an arbitration agreement in an unregistered but compulsorily registrable document and can be acted upon and enforced for the purpose of dispute resolution by arbitration — if the document is found to be duly stamped, or if the deficit stamp duty and penalty is paid, either before the Court or before the Collector and the defect with reference to deficit stamp is cured, the court may treat the document as duly stamped — the Supreme Court opined that as the lease deed was not registered, the lease deed or any term thereof and the lease deed cannot affect the immovable property which is the subject matter of the lease nor be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property — impugned order of the High Court set aside and the matter remitted to the learned Chief Justice to decide the issue of stamp duty for appointment of an arbitrator — appeal allowed.

2011 SCCL.COM 506(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 5831-33 of 2011) Vinny Parmvir Parmar Appellant(s) versus Parmvir Parmar Respondent(s) Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 7/20/2011. Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam and Hon'ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan. Subject Index: Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — section 25 — claim of permanent alimony/maintenance — appeal filed for enhancement of maintenance amount — allowed.

2011 SCCL.COM 505(Case No: Civil Appeal No.1474 of 2007 With Civil Appeal No.5130 of 2009) State of Uttarakhand & Another Appellants versus Archana Shukla & Others Respondents Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 7/20/2011. Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chandramauli Kr. Prasad. Subject Index: Uttaranchal Regularization of Ad Hoc Appointments (Posts under the purview of Public Service Commission) Rules, 2002 — Rule 7 — the respondents were appointed on adhoc officiating post in the year 1988 and were regularised in the year 2004 — the respondents claimed benefit of their service from 1988 to 2004 for the purpose of seniority — granted — hence, the appeal — the Supreme Court held that as the respondents were appointed after a selection under the Regularization Rules in the year 2004, they can get seniority only from the year 2004 and not from 1988 — impugned judgement of the High Court set aside — appeal allowed — no costs.

2011 SCCL.COM 504(Case No: Civil Appeal No(s). 5860-5861 of 2011) Mohd.Hamid & Anr. etc. etc. Appellant(s) versus Badi Masjid Trust & others etc. etc. Respondent(s) Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 7/20/2011. Judge(s): Hon'ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave. Subject Index: Statutory violation — forcible occupying of the area — for burial of the saint — illegal action — disturbance of law and order and communal harmony — writ petitions filed — the High Court issued directions to exhume the body of late Baba with full respect to his saintly-hood and to arrange for its appropriate honourable burial in accordance with law — hence, the appeals — a group of people took the dead body of Baba to the school premises leased out in favour of the respondent no. 7, broke open forcibly the lock of the door of the school and thereafter forcibly occupied the area concerned and buried the dead body in the said school premises, without permission and without any authority — statutory violation in the unauthorised action of burial of the saint — held no interference with the orders passed by the High Court — appeals dismissed.

2011 SCCL.COM 509(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 5448 of 2006 with C.A. Nos. 5382, 5387, 5388, 5389, 5391, 5394, 5395, 5397, 5412, 5421, 5428, 5429, 5432, 5436, 5444, 5445, 5446, 5455, 5457, 5499, 5501, 5502, 5504, 5506, 5507, 5508, 5511, 5533 & 5452 of 2006) Fida Hussain & Ors. Appellants versus Moradabad Development Authority & Anr. Respondents Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 7/19/2011. Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain and Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu. Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — adequacy of compensation for the acquisition of land — appeals filed — for enhancement of compensation — dismissed.

2011 SCCL.COM 512(Case No: IA No.36 and IA No.44 In Writ Petition(C) No. 967 of 1989) Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action Petitioners versus Union of India & others Respondents Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 7/18/2011. Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari and Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu. Subject Index: Interlocutory applications — non-compliance of the Court's Order — respondent No.4, the chemical industrial plant started producing certain chemicals like Oleum and Single Super Phosphate. Since the toxic untreated waste waters were allowed to flow out freely and the untreated toxic sludge was thrown in the open in and around the complex, the toxic substances percolated deep into the bowels of the earth polluting the aquifers and the sub-terrain supply of water — sudden degradation of earth and water — writ petition filed — the Supreme Court while accepting the report of the MOEF directed the applicant - M/s Hindustan Agro Chemical Ltd. to pay a sum of Rs.37.385 crores towards the costs of remediation. The final judgment was delivered way back in 1996 however, the said judgment has not been permitted to acquire finality because the respondent Nos. 4 to 8 had filed multiple interlocutory applications and has ensured non-compliance of the judgment of this Court — can a party who does not comply with the court order be permitted to retain the benefits of his own wrong of non-compliance — whether the successful party be not compensated by way of restitution for deprivation of its legitimate dues for more than fourteen years — whether the court should not remove all incentives for not complying with the judgment of the court — the applicant-industry is directed to pay Rs.37.385 crores along with compound interest @ 12% per annum from 4.11.1997 till the amount is paid and also to pay costs of Rs.10 lakhs in both the Interlocutory Applications — interlocutory applications diposed.

2011 SCCL.COM 494(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 4255 of 2002) G. Krishnareddy Appellant versus Sajjappa (D) By Lrs. & another Respondents Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 7/18/2011. Judge(s): Hon'ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave. Subject Index: Prohibition of Transfer Act, 1978 — section 5 — application filed under — for resumption and restitution of granted land — on the ground that it was purchased by the late father of the appellant in violation of the prohibition clause of the grant — the Assistant Commissioner after conducting an enquiry held that the purchaser is in possession of the land for more than 12 years, thus, rejected the application — writ petition filed — the High Court quashed the impugned order and while allowing the appeal in favour of the heirs of the original grantee directed the Assistant Commissioner to take action according to law to restore possession of the said land to the respondent — hence, the appeal — the grant given to the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent indicated that nowhere in the said grant it has been clearly and specifically stated that it has been an absolute transfer of the right in title and possession by the State Government to the concerned person. It was only a transfer of the possession of the land by way of allotment. Further, it was a grant for possession by way of cultivation for a limited period of 30 years — impugned order of the High Court affirmed — appeal dismissed.

2011 SCCL.COM 495 (Case No: Civil Appeal No. 5481 of 2011 With Civil Appeal No. 5482 of 2011) Jagdish Parwani Appellant versus Union of India & Ors. Respondents Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 7/15/2011. Judge(s): Hon'ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave. Subject Index: Pay protection — benefit of — entitlement of — in question — writ petition filed — the High Court held that the appellant is not entitled to pay protection and, therefore, his claim was rejected — the contents of the notification/memorandum clearly stated that the employees of the State Government Undertakings selected for posts in Central Government on direct recruitment basis on and after 01.02.1992 were extended the benefit of pay protection. But since the appellant was selected and appointed to a post in Central Government on 23.02.1990 after working as an employee of the State Government Undertaking, viz., UPSEB, the notification was not applicable to him — the appellant accepted the appointment without any demur or protest on the issue of pay being given to him under the appointment order issued to him by the Military Engineering Service, Ministry of Defence, fixing his pay scale at the minimum of the pay scale of Rs. 2200 — impugned order of the High Court affirmed — appeals dismissed.

2011 SCCL.COM 488(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 4281 of 2006) Union of India & others Appellant(s) versus Jujhar Singh Respondent(s) Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 7/15/2011. Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam and Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Patnaik. Subject Index: Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 — Regulation 179 — disability pension — claim of — writ petition filed for — allowed — hence, the appeal — whether the case of the respondent for disability is covered under Regulation 179 — whether the disability in an accident suffered by the respondent during his annual leave while doing his personal work would amount to the disability attributable to or aggravated by military service — no — under Regulation 179 a personnel can be granted disability pension only if he is found suffering from disability which is attributable to or aggravated by military service and recorded by Service Medical Authorities. However, the medical authorities opined that the disability of the respondent is neither attributable to nor aggravated by the military service — the Supreme Court held that respondent is entitled to "full normal pension", but not entitled to "disability pension" — impugned judgments of the High Court set aside — appeal allowed — no costs.

2011 SCCL.COM 482(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 5461 of 2011) Jalandhar Improvement Trust Appellant versus Vinod Kumar & others Respondents Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 7/15/2011. Judge(s): Hon'ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave. Subject Index: Punjab Public Premises Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 — sections 5 and 7 — initiation of proceedings under — proprietary rights — the land in dispute belongs to the Punjab Town Improvement/Government being a part of development scheme and the respondents claimed to be in possession of the said land as an evacuee property — civil suit filed — the trial Court directed that the plaintiff would not be dispossessed from the suit property otherwise than in due course of law — writ petition filed — the High Court remanded the matter to the Settlement Commissioner for considering the claims of the respondents while maintaining status quo in the matter — hence, the appeal — the Supreme Court held that even if respondents are entitled to rehabilitation under any law the same has to be established by due process of law. They cannot claim any land within the acquired area/55.0 Acres of Development Scheme but in case an order is passed in their favour, they would be rehabilitated in alternative plot(s) — impugned order passed by the High Court set aside and the proceedings initiated against the respondents under Sections 5 and 7 of the Eviction Act allowed to be continued — appeal allowed.

2011 SCCL.COM 522(Case No: Civil Appeal No(s). 200 OF 2007 With Civil Appeal No. 1197 of 2007) Union of India & Anr. Appellant (s) versus Ram Singh Thakur & Ors. Respondent(s) Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 7/14/2011. Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chandramauli Kr. Prasad. Subject Index: Induction scheme — in challenge — the Tribunal directed the Chairman, Railway Board to formulate a suitable scheme for induction of the respondents and similarly placed employees of other co-operative societies in regular Group 'D' posts and alternatively also as Casual Group 'D' employees in the railways. The High Court upheld the said direction — the Supreme Court held that the framing of a scheme as done by the Tribunal and approved by the High Court was a purely executive function, and could not validly be done by the judiciary — impugned order set aside — appeal allowed — no costs. Regularisation in service — the respondents were working in a Mess run by the trainee officers in the Railway Staff College — the respondents were not railway employees, but a direction has been given that they be regularised in railway service — the Supreme Court held that a direction regarding regularisation in service is a purely executive function — appeal allowed.

2011 SCCL.COM 500(Case No: Special Leave Petition (C) No.19461 of 2006) Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. Petitioner(s) versus Mare Shipping Inc. Respondent(s) Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 7/13/2011. Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir and Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Patnaik. Subject Index: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — arbitral award allowing the Respondents' demurrage claim — under challenge — whether on arriving at anchorage point at Port Vadinar, despite the destination point being the SBM mooring, it could be said that it was an arrived ship which was competent under the Charter Party, to issue Notice of Readiness of discharge of its cargo — if the finding of the Arbitral Tribunal that the vessel was an arrived ship at Port Vadinar, as upheld by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court is accepted, would the Respondents/Owners of the vessel be entitled to damages or demurrage — yes — the responsibility of the Owners of the vessel ended with the declaration of the equipment available on board for mooring and berthing for the purpose of discharge of its cargo — no prior checking had been done by the Charterers to ascertain as to whether with the mooring equipment on board the vessel she would be able to moor safely at the SBM for discharge of her cargo. Even the subsequent deviation of the vessel from Vadinar to Mumbai was not on account of any laches on the part of the Owners of the vessel — the Charterers accepted the responsibility for the failure of the vessel to discharge her cargo at Vadinar and agreed to bear all the expenses for the delay in diversion of the vessel from Vadinar to Mumbai — the Supreme Court held no interference with the Award of the Arbitral Tribunal as confirmed by the High Court — petition dismissed.

2011 SCCL.COM 497(Case No:  Civil Appeal No. 4995 of 2006) Arulmighu Dhandayudhapaniswamy Thirukoil, Palani, Tamil Nadu, Thr. Its Joint Commissioner Appellant(s)versus The Director General of Post Offices, Department of Posts & others Respondent(s) Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 7/13/2011. Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam and Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Patnaik. Subject Index: Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — section 2(1)(g) — deficiency in service — Post office Savings Bank General Rules, 1981 — Rules 16 and 17 — accounts opened in contravention of the rules — the appellant deposited a huge sum of money totaling to Rs.1,40,64,300/- under the `Post Office Time Deposit Scheme'. The Scheme discontinued for investment by institutions and therefore, the amount deposited by the Temple was refunded without interest — complaint filed — dismissed — hence, the appeal — whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the Post Master, Post Office, Palani-3rd Respondent and whether the appellant-complainant is entitled to any relief by way of interest — the Supreme Court held that even though the Certificates contained the terms of contract between the Government of India and the holders of the National Savings Certificate, the terms in the contract were contrary to the Notification and therefore the terms of contract being unlawful and void were not binding on the Government of India and as such the Government refusing to pay interest at the rate mentioned in the Certificate is not a case of deficiency — the 3rd respondent was ignorant of any Notification and because of the lack of knowledge on the part of the Post Master who accepted the deposit and the appellant lost a substantial amount towards interest — appeal dismissed — no costs.

2011 SCCL.COM 498(Case No: Civil Appeal No.7374 of 2003 with Civil Appeal No.7375 of 2003) Jaipur Development Authority and others Appellants versus Vijay Kumar Data and another with Daya Kishan Data Respondents Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 7/12/2011. Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly. Subject Index: Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 — legitimacy on the illegal transactions involving purchase of the acquired land — was questioned — the Land Acquisition Officer passed an unusual award whereby he not only determined the amount of compensation payable to the landowners and the beneficiaries of illegal transfers, but also directed allotment of plots to the owners, their transferees and nominees/sub-nominees out of the acquired land — draw of lots held for allotment of plots — the unsuccessful awardees filed writ petitions — the Division Bench granted relief to the writ petitioners on the ground of violation of the equality clause and directed that they should also be allotted plots as per their entitlement — hence, the appeals — whether the Division Bench of the High Court could have granted relief to the respondents by entertaining an altogether new case with reference to the so called policy framed by the State Government for regularization of the illegal allotments / encroachments of the acquired land in the Lal Kothi and Prithviraj Nagar Schemes — held no — the Division Bench ignored the unchallenged findings recorded by the Tribunal and the trial Court that the transferor of the respondents did not have valid title over the land and he had no right to secure allotment of 1500 sq. yds. land in the Lal Kothi Scheme — the Supreme Court viewed that even if the instructions by the Committee could be treated as policy decision of the Government, the High Court should have quashed the same because the said policy was clearly contrary to the law and was a crude attempt by the concerned political functionaries of the State to legalise what had already been declared illegal — impugned judgment set aside — appeals allowed.

2011 SCCL.COM 493(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 2550 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 2551 of 2010) C.M. Thri Vikrama Varma with Union of India & others Appellants versus Avinash Mohanty & others Respondents Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 7/12/2011. Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran and Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Patnaik. Subject Index: IPS (Cadre) Rules, 1954 — Rules 3 and 5 — allocation of candidates selected for the IPS — challenged — the High Court concluded that the allocation of appellant Vikrama Varma to the Andhra Pradesh cadre was in violation of the guidelines and was clearly arbitrary and not equitable, therefore, quashed the allocation of Vikrama Varma to the Andhra Pradesh cadre and directed the Union of India to reconsider the allocation of Avinash Mohanty and Vikrama Varma in accordance with law — the Supreme Court viewed that complexity of a decision making process cannot be a defence when a grievance is made before the Court by a citizen that his fundamental right to equality has been violated — the order of the High Court confirmed, however, the Supreme Court held that the reconsideration of the allocation of two members will not have cascading effects on the service — appeals dismissed — no costs.

2011 SCCL.COM 492(Case No:  Civil Appeal No. 2005 of 2007) Union of India Appellant(s) versus M/s. Krafters Engineering & Leasing (P) Ltd. Respondent(s) Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 7/12/2011. Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam and Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Patnaik. Subject Index: Arbitration petition — challenging the award given by the Umpire with regard to interest granted — whether an arbitrator has jurisdiction to grant interest despite the agreement prohibiting the same — no — the Supreme Court held that in view of the specific prohibition of contract contained in Clause 1.15, the arbitrator ceases to have the power to grant interest. The bar under clause 1.15 is absolute and interest cannot be awarded without rewriting the contract — the award of the arbitrator granting interest in respect of the amount payable to the contractor under the contract set aside — appeal allowed — no costs.

2011 SCCL.COM 502(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 5493 of 2011 With Civil Appeal No. 5494 of 2011) Mathai M. Paikeday Appellant versus C.K. Antony Respondent Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 7/11/2011. Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu. Subject Index: Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 33 Rule 1 and Order 44 Rule 1 — benefit of — whether entitled to — recovery of money — suits filed for — suits decreed in favour of the appellant — respondent filed appeals along with petitions to prosecute the said appeals as an indigent person — allowed — hence, the appeals — whether the respondent is an indigent person as not possessed of sufficient means to pay the court fees and, consequently, entitled to avail the benefits under Order 44 of the Code of Civil Procedure — the respondent is a retired Deputy Conservator of Forest, Government of Kerala drawing a pension of `10,500/- and his son is employed abroad — the respondent failed to establish that the amount of money received from his son is not substantial or insufficient to pay court fee — the Supreme Court opined that non-production of bank account transaction details, amounts to suppression of the facts, therefore, concluded that the amount of money received by the respondent from his son and by way of pension amounts to a sufficient means to pay court fee which disentitles him to be an indigent person under Order 33 Rule 1 and Order 44 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure — impugned order of the High Court set aside — appeals allowed.

2011 SCCL.COM 470(Case No:  Civil Appeal No. 5142 of 2011 With Civil Appeal No. 5143 of 2011) Nandiesha Reddy Appellant versus Mrs. Kavitha Mahesh Respondent Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 7/8/2011. Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chandramauli Kr. Prasad. Subject Index: Representation of People Act, 1951 — sections 83 and 86 — Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order VI Rule 16, Order VII Rule 11 — applications filed under — for dismissal of Election Petition — dismissed — hence, the petitions — appellant got elected to the Karnataka Assembly from K.R.Pura Assembly Constituency — election petition filed challenging the Election of the Returned Candidate on the ground of illegal rejection of nomination paper at threshold by the Returning Officer — the Election Petitioner averred that nomination paper was signed by 10 electors — the Supreme Court opined that when a nomination paper is presented it is the bounden duty of the Returning Officer to receive the nomination, peruse it, point out the defects, if any, and allow the candidate to rectify the defects and when the defects are not removed then alone the question of rejection of nomination would arise — held that the Election Petitioner had disclosed material facts and the matter is fit to go for trial — appeals dismissed.

2011 SCCL.COM 499(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 29 of 2008 with Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 2008) State of Rajasthan Th. Secy. Home Dept. Appellant versus Abdul Mannan with Abdul Zabbar & another Respondents Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 7/7/2011. Judge(s):  Hon'ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — sections 302/149, 148, 324/149 — punishment of murder, grievous hurt, rioting with unlawful assembly — acquittal of the offences under — appeals against — more than five persons constituted an unlawful assembly and in furtherance to their common object and intent, assaulted and caused injuries to vital parts of the bodies of the deceased, ultimately resulting in their death — the judgment of conviction converted to a judgment of acquittal by the High Court — identity of the accused fully established by the statements of PW3, PW4, PW5 and PW6 — no reason advanced as to why PW4 and PW5 independent witnesses, and the doctor would involve the accused falsely — medical evidence corroborated the ocular evidence. It was an incident involving a mob but only few persons entered the house of the deceased, including the three accused as having inflicted injuries on the body of the deceased and were duly identified by the prosecution witnesses — the common object to commit murder has been fully proved — the Supreme Court held that the order of acquittal is based on some contradiction in the statements of the while completely ignoring the entire case of the prosecution particularly when the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt — judgment of the High Court set aside and the conviction orders of the trial court restored — appeals allowed.

2011 SCCL.COM 484(Case No:  Criminal Appeal No. 437 of 2005) Nand Kishore Appellant versus State of Madhya Pradesh Respondent Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 7/7/2011. Judge(s): Hon'ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — section 302 r/w section 34 — punishment of murder with common intention — conviction and sentence for commission of the offence under — appeal against — statement of PW-1, eye-witness corroborated with the report of the FIR — the recovery memo duly proved in accordance with law, according to the medical evidence given by PW5, and the statement of the investigating officer, PW8, clearly show that knife was recovered from the house of the accused and the injuries on the body of the deceased were inflicted by the knife

2011 SCCL.COM 478(Case No: Civil Appeal No.103 of 2002) Noor Sk. Bhikan Appellant versus State of Maharashtra & others Respondent(s) Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 7/7/2011. Judge(s): Hon'ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar. Subject Index: Acquisition of land — change of allotted area — the appellant was allotted 1.61 hectares of land and possession of land was handed over to him. However, respondent No.5 filed a suit for a declaration in relation to the land in question — the Collector being satisfied about the mistake committed by the Circle Inspector ordered that the area allotted to the appellant as per the original order needed a change — appellant filed writ petition — the High Court held that the appellant could not continue to claim possession of the land which was not the subject matter of the acquisition itself. However, the Court granted relief to the appellant in relation to an alternative site — hence, the appeal — the Supreme Court held that the land which was not subject matter of the acquisition could not be treated as the land having been offered to the appellant validly and in accordance with law. Further held that there was a mistake committed by the Revenue Authorities which was subsequently corrected, no advantage can be claimed by the petitioner in that regard, particularly when the mistake was in relation to a root controversy — appeal dismissed — no costs.

2011 SCCL.COM 477(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 1101 of 2004) State of Delhi Appellant versus Ram Avtar @ Rama Respondent Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 7/7/2011. Judge(s): Hon'ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar. Subject Index: NDPS Act, 1985 — section 21 — acquittal of the offence under — appeal against — section 50 — non-compliance of the mandatory provision — police party apprehended the appellant and on search, three polythene packets recovered from left side pocket of his shirt containing powder of light brown colour. The sample gave positive test for diacetylmorphine (heroin) — the concerned officer had prior information of the raid; thus, he was expected to be prepared for carrying out his duties of investigation in accordance with the provisions of Section 50 of the Act. The contraband article should be recovered in accordance with the provisions of Section 50 of the Act, otherwise, the recovery itself shall stand vitiated in law — the accused was not made aware of his right, that he could be searched in the presence of Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, therefore, non-compliance of the provisions of Section 50 of the Act caused prejudice to the accused, and, amounted to the denial of a fair trial — the Supreme Court held that contraband seized as a result of search made in contravention to Section 50 of the Act, cannot be used to fasten the liability of unlawful possession of contraband on the person from whom the contraband had allegedly been seized in an illegal manner — acquittal order confirmed — appeal dismissed.

2011 SCCL.COM 471(Case No:  Civil Appeal No(s). 5102-5103 of 2011) Jagdish Prasad Appellant versus State of Rajasthan & others Respondents Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 7/7/2011. Judge(s): Hon'ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar. Subject Index: Rajasthan Transport Service Rules, 1979 — Rule 24 (6) — promotion — on seniority-cum-merit principle — orders to undertake fresh exercise for promotion to the post of District Transport Officer from the post of Motor Vehicle Inspectors — under challenge — whether merely by the amendment to Schedule I and the deletion of Schedule II of the 1979 Rules the effect of the statutory provisions like Rules 6,10, 24 of the 1979 Rules read in their plain language would stand diluted — no — nothing produced on record to show that Rules 6, 10, 11 and 24 of the 1979 Rules have been subjected to any amendment by the competent authority — once the framers of the Rules have intended to provide merit as the sole criteria of promotion, the appointing authority is not vested with the jurisdiction to waive the same or completely wipe out the same — no sufficient cause for not holding the examinations for more than ten years and causing serious prejudice to the candidates who might have been sufficiently meritorious to qualify in the exams and be considered for promotion to 50% of the posts under the promotion quota — the Supreme Court found the preparation of seniority list, method of selection and clubbing of vacancies apparently in violation of the statutory Rules — the selection/promotion order set aside — directions issued.

go top | go back

Home | Membership form | Journals & Books | Services | About Us | Register with us | Supreme Court Caselaw |Consumer Caselaw | Latest Cases | Food Laws | Drug Laws |Labour Laws | Consumer Laws | Municipal Laws | Law Links | Suggestions/Complaints