Posts

Showing posts from March, 2021

Youth Bar Association of India vs Union of India - Supreme Court

 Youth Bar Association of India vs Union of India  - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2016 -    On 7th September, 2016, in the case of Youth Bar Association of India vs Union of India and Others [Writ Petition (Crl.) no.68 of 2016], various important directions were issued on the First Information Report (FIR). The Supreme Court inter alia directed that “an accused is entitled to get a copy of the First Information Report at an earlier stage than as prescribed under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C.”; and that “copies of the FIRs, unless the offence is sensitive in nature, like sexual offences, offences pertaining to insurgency, terrorism and of that category, offences under POCSO Act and such other offences, should be uploaded on the police website, and if there is no such website, on the official website of the State Government, within twenty-four hours of the registration of the First Information Report.” However, it was clarified that “in case there is connectivity problems due to geograp

Devika Biswas vs Union of India - Supreme Court

 Devika Biswas vs Union of India - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2016 -    On 14th September, 20016, in the case of Devika Biswas vs Union of India & Ors. [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 95 of 2012], while examining important issues concerning the entire range of conduct and management, under the auspices of State Governments, of sterilization procedures wherein women and occasionally men are sterilized in camps or in accredited centres, and also pre-operation procedures and post-operative care or lack of it, the Supreme court issued a number of directives.  It was inter alia directed that the “State-wise, district-wise or region-wise panel of doctors approved for carrying out the sterilization procedure, must be accessible through the website of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare of the Government of India as well the corresponding Ministry or Department of each State Government and each Union Territory” and the “list should contain all necessary particulars of each doctor an

U. Subhadramma vs State of A.P. rep. by Pub. Prosecutor - Supreme Court

 U. Subhadramma vs State of A.P. rep. by Pub. Prosecutor - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2016 -    On 4th July, 2016, in the case of U. Subhadramma vs State of A.P. rep. by Pub. Prosecutor & Anr. [Criminal Appeal No.1596 of 2011], while examining the question as to whether the property of a person accused of misappropriation but who died during pendency of the criminal trial can be attached in the hands of his legal representatives under the provisions of Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944, the Court held that “if the law requires that the orders of attachment should be withdrawn upon acquittal it stands to reason that such orders must be withdrawn when the prosecution abates or cannot result in a conviction due to the death of the accused, whose property is attached.” In the instant case, it was accordingly held that the District Judge “could not have proceeded with the attachment proceedings at all since the attachment proceedings were initiated by the State” against the a

State Bank of India vs Santosh Gupta - Supreme Court Case

 State Bank of India vs Santosh Gupta - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2016 -    On 16th December, 2016, in the case of State Bank of India vs Santosh Gupta and Anr. Etc. [Civil Appeal Nos. 12237- 12238 of 2016], while examining the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“SARFAESI”) in its applicability to the State of Jammu & Kashmir, it was held that the entire SARFAESI Act, including Sections 17A and 18B, is in pith and substance referable to Entries 45 and 95 of List I of the VIIth Schedule to the Constitution, and therefore the Act as a whole would necessarily operate in the State of Jammu & Kashmir. Observing that the High Court was absolutely wrong in finding that as Section 140 of the Jammu & Kashmir Transfer of Property Act will be infracted, SARFAESI cannot be held to apply to the State of Jammu & Kashmir, the Bench held that “Entries 45 and 95 of List I clothe Parliament with exclusive power to

C.I.T. vs M/s Yokogawa India Ltd. - Supreme Court

 C.I.T. & Anr. vs M/s Yokogawa India Ltd. - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2016 -  On 16th December, 2016, in the case of C.I.T. & Anr. vs M/s Yokogawa India Ltd. [Civil Appeal No.8498 of 2013], it was held that though Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as amended, is a provision for deduction, the stage of deduction would be while computing the gross total income of the eligible undertaking under Chapter IV of the Act and not at the stage of computation of the total income under Chapter VI. The Bench observed that the introduction of the word ‘deduction’ in Section 10A by the amendment, and the scope of the deductions contemplated by Section 10A indicate that “the Section embodies a clear enunciation of the legislative decision to alter its nature from one providing for exemption to one providing for deductions.”

Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation vs GTL Infrastructure Ltd. - Supreme Court Case

 Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation vs GTL Infrastructure Ltd. - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2016 -  On 16th December, 2016, in the case of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation vs GTL Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors. Etc. [Civil Appeal Nos. 5360 – 5363 of 2013], wherein levy of property tax on mobile towers under the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, was under challenge, it was held that there is no reason “as to why, though in common parlance and in everyday life, a mobile tower is certainly not a building, it would also cease to be a building for the purposes of Entry 49 List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution so as to deny the State Legislature the power to levy a tax thereon. Such a law can trace its source to the provisions Entry 49 List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.” The Court observed that a “general word like ‘building’ must be construed to reasonably extend to all ancillary and subsidiary matters.”

Mohammed Zubair Corporal No.781467-G vs Union of India - Supreme Court Case

 Mohammed Zubair Corporal No.781467-G vs Union of India - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2016 -  On 15th December, 2016, in the case of Mohammed Zubair Corporal No.781467-G vs Union of India & Ors. [Civil Appeal No.8643 of 2009], the appellant, a member of the Indian Air Force, asserted his right to sport a beard on grounds that he was a Muslim, and challenged the Air Force order directing him to shave off his beard contending that it was contrary to Regulation 425(b) of the Regulations governing the Indian Air Force.  While observing that the appellant did not produce any material to indicate that he professed a religious belief that would bring him within the ambit of Regulation 425(b), which applies to “personnel whose religion prohibits the cutting off the hair or shaving off the face of its members”, a three Judge Bench held that the appellant, “having been enrolled as a member of the Air Force, was necessarily required to abide by the discipline of the Force.” It was furthe

Justice (Retd.) Markandey Katju vs The Lok Sabha - Supreme Court Case

 Justice (Retd.) Markandey Katju vs The Lok Sabha - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2016 -  On 15th December, 2016, in the case of Justice (Retd.) Markandey Katju vs The Lok Sabha & Anr. [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 504 of 2015], wherein Resolutions passed by the Rajya Sabha and the Lok Sabha condemning the remarks made by the petitioner on his Facebook page regarding Mahatma Gandhi and Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose were in issue, a three Judge Bench examined the question as to whether the power available with the Houses of Parliament to deal with a stranger is only in relation to such act of that stranger which interferes with the functioning of the House and since the remarks of the petitioner did not in any way impede or interfere with the proceedings of Parliament, it was not within the jurisdiction of any of the Houses to take notice of such remarks and pass the Resolutions in question.  The Bench held that “the only restriction in the Constitution as regards subject matter of an

The State of Tamil Nadu vs K. Balu - Supreme Court Important Judgment

 The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By its Secretary Home, Prohibition & Excise Dept & Ors vs K. Balu - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2016 -  On 15th December, 2016, in the case of The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By its Secretary Home, Prohibition & Excise Dept & Ors vs K. Balu & Anr. [Civil Appeal Nos.12164-12166 of 2016], while adverting to the issue of presence of liquor vends on National and State highways across the country in the backdrop of alarming statistics on the occurrence of road accidents, a three Judge Bench issued following directions under Article 142 of the Constitution:-. (i) All states and union territories shall forthwith cease and desist from granting licences for the sale of liquor along national and state highways; (ii) The prohibition contained in (i) above shall extend to and include stretches of such highways which fall within the limits of a municipal corporation, city, town or local authority; (iii) The existing licences which have already bee

Sita Ram vs Balbir @ Bali - Supreme Court Case

 Sita Ram vs Balbir @ Bali - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2016 -  On 15th December, 2016, in the case of Sita Ram vs Balbir @ Bali [Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 374 of 2014 in Criminal Appeal No.1834 of 2013], a three Judge Bench held two medical professionals guilty of contempt for extending medical asylum to an accused “without there being any reason or medical condition justifying” his prolonged admission “as an indoor patient as a cover to defeat” the orders passed by the Supreme Court and the trial court, and thereby aid and assist the accused in violating the order of the Supreme Court. The Bench observed that by such conduct the two medical professionals “obstructed administration of justice”. However, the Bench did not impose any punishment on the two medical professionals and granted them “one more opportunity” “to present their view on the issue of punishment.”

M/s Centrotrade Minerals & Metal Inc. v. Hindustan Copper Ltd. - Supreme Court Case

 M/s Centrotrade Minerals & Metal Inc. v. Hindustan Copper Ltd. - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2016 -  On 15th December, 2016, in the case of M/s Centrotrade Minerals & Metal Inc. v. Hindustan Copper Ltd. [Civil Appeal No. 2562 of 2006], while examining the validity of two-tier arbitration procedure in India, a three Judge Bench held that “an arbitral award would be final and binding on the parties unless it is set aside by a competent court on an application made by a party to the arbitral award” but this does not exclude the autonomy of the parties to an arbitral award to mutually agree to a procedure whereby the arbitral award might be reconsidered by another arbitrator or panel of arbitrators by way of an appeal and the result of that appeal is accepted by the parties to be final and binding subject to a challenge provided for by the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.  The Bench held that “the fact that recourse to a court is available to a party for challenging

Cardamom Marketing Corporation & Anr. vs State Of Kerala - Supreme Court

 Cardamom Marketing Corporation & Anr. vs State Of Kerala - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2016 -    On 1st September, 2016, in the case of Cardamom Marketing Corporation & Anr. vs State Of Kerala & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 4453 of 2008], the appellants challenged the vires of a notification issued by the Government of Kerala in exercise of powers under Section 76(1) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 [CF Act] which authorised levy of additional court fee in respect of each appeal or revision; and further provided that the amount so collected shall be credited to the Kerala Legal Benefit Fund constituted under sub-section (2) of Section 76 of the CF Act. Upholding the said levy of additional court fee, a three Judge Bench observed that “as per Section 76(3) of the CF Act, one of the purposes for which the Fund is to be utilised is for providing efficient legal services for the people of the State. It clearly amounts to quid pro quo. Other purpose is also

State of Himachal Pradesh vs Sanjay Kumar @ Sunny - Supreme Court Case

 State of Himachal Pradesh vs Sanjay Kumar @ Sunny - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2016 -  On 15th December, 2016, in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh vs Sanjay Kumar @ Sunny [Criminal Appeal No. 1231 of 2016], while convicting the respondent for raping his nine year old niece, the Supreme Court observed that the reluctance on the part of the prosecutrix (PW-2) in not narrating the incident to anybody for a period of three years and not sharing the same event with her mother (PW-1) was “clearly understandable.” It was observed that “in cases of incestuous abuse, more often, silence is built into the abuse.”  The Bench further observed that likewise, delay of three days in lodging the FIR by PW-1, after eliciting information from her daughter PW-2, was inconsequential in the facts of the case. It was observed that “most of the time, acquaintance rapes, when the culprit is a family member, are not even reported for various reasons, not difficult to fathom. The strongest among tho

Union of India vs Rajasthan High Court - Supreme Court Case

 Union of India vs Rajasthan High Court - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2016 -  On 14th December, 2016, in the case of Union of India vs Rajasthan High Court & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 717 of 2016], a three Judge Bench set aside a direction issued by the High Court to the Union Government “to include the Chief Justices and the judges of the High Court in the list of persons exempted from pre-embarkation security checks” at the airports, observing that “matters of security ought to be determined by authorities of the government vested with the duty and obligation to do so. Gathering of intelligence information, formulation of policies of security, deciding on steps to be taken to meet threats originating both internally and externally are matters on which courts singularly lack expertise.”  The Bench observed that undoubtedly breach of security at the airport is an issue of serious concern, however, “a suo moto exercise of the nature embarked upon by the High Court encroaches upon

Larsen & Toubro Limited vs Additional Deputy Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes

 Larsen & Toubro Limited vs Additional Deputy Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2016 -    On 5th September, 2016, in the case of Larsen & Toubro Limited vs Additional Deputy Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes & Anr. [Civil Appeal No. 2956 of 2007], while examining the liability of the assessee to pay turnover tax under Section 6-B of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 on the payment made to the sub-contractor inspite of the fact that the sub-contractor had declared the turnover and paid taxes, it was held “that the value of the work entrusted to the sub-contractors or payments made to them shall not be taken into consideration while computing total turnover for the purposes of Section 6-B of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act.”

Bachpan Bachao Andolan vs Union of India - Supreme Court

 Bachpan Bachao Andolan vs Union of India - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2016 -  On 14th December, 2016, in the case of Bachpan Bachao Andolan vs Union of India & Ors. [Writ Petition (Civil) No.906 of 2014], while addressing on the issue of drugs, alcohol and substance abuse amongst children in India, a three Judge Bench observed that “these are matters which should not be brushed under the carpet” and that the “authorities should consider how children should be sensitised (having due regard to the age and stage of the child) of the dangers of drug use, the necessity to report drug use and the need to develop resistance to prevailing peer and social pressures.” Accordingly, the Union government was directed to (i) complete a national survey and generate a national data base within a period of six months; (ii) formulate and adopt a comprehensive national plan within four months, which will among other things also address the areas of immediate concern noted earlier; and (iii) ad

Jorsingh Govind Vanjari vs Divisional Controller Maharashtra

 Jorsingh Govind Vanjari vs Divisional Controller Maharashtra, State Road Transport Corporation  - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2016 -  On 6th December, 2016, in the case of Jorsingh Govind Vanjari vs Divisional Controller Maharashtra, State Road Transport Corporation, Jalgaon Division, Jalgaon [Civil Appeal No.11807 of 2016], it was held that “in order to deny gratuity to an employee, it is not enough that the alleged misconduct of the employee constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude as per the report of the domestic inquiry, rather “there must be termination on account of the alleged misconduct, which constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude.”

Shyam Narayan Chouksey vs Union of India - Supreme Court

 Shyam Narayan Chouksey vs Union of India - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2016 -  On 30th November, 2016, in the case of Shyam Narayan Chouksey vs Union of India [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 855 of 2016], while observing that “it is the sacred obligation of every citizen to abide by the ideals engrafted in the Constitution” and “one such ideal is to show respect for the National Anthem and the National Flag”, the Supreme Court, as an interim measure, inter alia directed that “all the cinema halls in India shall play the National Anthem before the feature film starts and all present in the hall are obliged to stand up to show respect to the National Anthem” and that “when the National Anthem shall be played in the Cinema Halls, it shall be with the National Flag on the screen.”

Nandkishor Savalaram Malu vs Hanumanmal G. Biyani

 Nandkishor Savalaram Malu (Dead) Through Lrs. vs Hanumanmal G. Biyani - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2016 -  On 29th November, 2016, in the case of Nandkishor Savalaram Malu (Dead) Through Lrs. vs Hanumanmal G. Biyani (D) Thr. Lrs. & Ors. [Civil Appeal No.11868 of 2016], it was held that “an employee of a tenant is never considered to be in actual possession of tenanted premises much less in possession in his legal right. Indeed, he is allowed to use the tenanted premises only with the permission of his employer by virtue of his contract of employment with his employer. An employee, therefore, cannot claim any legal right of his own to occupy or to remain in possession of the tenanted premises while in employment of his employer or even thereafter qua landlord for want of any privity of contract between him and the landlord in respect of the tenanted premises.” It was further held that “in rent proceedings the lessee/tenant is the only necessary or/and proper party and none el

Anjan Dasgupta vs The State of West Bengal - Supreme Court

 Anjan Dasgupta vs The State of West Bengal - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2016 -  On 25th November, 2016, in the case of Anjan Dasgupta vs The State of West Bengal & Ors. [Criminal Appeal No. 298 of 2006], it was held that “the receipt and the recording of First Information Report is not a condition precedent for setting in motion of a criminal investigation.”

Lok Prahari Thr. Its General Secretary, S.N. Shukla vs State of U.P.

 Lok Prahari Thr. Its General Secretary, S.N. Shukla vs State of U.P. - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2016 -  On 21st November, 2016, in the case of Lok Prahari Thr. Its General Secretary, S.N. Shukla vs State of U.P. and Ors. [Civil Appeal No.11004 of 2016], the legality of the Vidhayak Nidhi Scheme in the State of Uttar Pradesh, which provided for annual budgetary grants to Members of the Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council for facilitating development work in their constituencies, was examined by a three Judge Bench. While observing that the elected representatives have “a legitimate role to discharge in meeting the development needs of their constituencies” and Article 243ZD of the Constitution “does not exclude their role,” the Bench held that the Vidhayak Nidhi Scheme does not per se violate Article 243ZD of the Constitution or the U. P. District Planning Committee Act, 1999. However, the Bench observed that it was necessary that the guidelines formulated by the State

M.S. Kazi vs Muslim Education Society - Supreme Court

 M.S. Kazi vs Muslim Education Society - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2016 -    On 22nd August, 2016, in the case of M.S. Kazi vs Muslim Education Society [Civil Appeal No.11976 – 11977 of 2014], wherein the Gujarat Higher Secondary Education Tribunal constituted under Section 39 of the Gujarat Secondary Education Act, 1972 had upheld the dismissal of appellant-school teacher, and maintainability of the Special Civil Application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution against the order of the Tribunal was challenged on the ground that the Tribunal was not impleaded as a party in the Special Civil Application, a three Judge Bench held that “the tribunal is not required to defend its orders when they are challenged before the High Court in a Special Civil Application under Articles 226 and 227” of the Constitution. “An order of the tribunal is capable of being tested in exercise of the power of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227. When the remedy is invoked, the t

Karma Dorjee vs Union of India - Supreme Court

 Karma Dorjee & Ors. vs Union of India - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2016 -  On 14th December, 2016, in the case of Karma Dorjee & Ors. vs Union of India and Ors. [Writ Petition(Civil) No.103 of 2014], a three Judge Bench observed that “monitoring of instances of racial discrimination involving citizens from the north-eastern states involves among other things issues pertaining to law enforcement. However, the involvement of the law enforcement machinery is alone not sufficient to resolve the problem. Mind-sets have to be changed including in the universities, colleges and educational institutions, places of work and in society. Sensitivity and inclusion have to be fostered. In order to achieve this, greater awareness of the history and the rich cultural traditions of the north-east is required to be inculcated. The problems faced by persons from the north-east traverse a whole range of issues, from the mundane issues of daily life to matters of education, employment, soci

IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. vs Hubtown Ltd. - Supreme Court

 IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. vs Hubtown Ltd. - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2016 -  On 15th November, 2016, in the case of IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. vs Hubtown Ltd. [Civil Appeal No.10860 of 2016], while examining the discretion that a Judge exercises under Order XXXVII, CPC to refuse leave to defend a Summary suit or to grant conditional or unconditional leave to defend, the following guidelines / principles were laid down by the Supreme Court to obviate exercise of judicial discretion in an arbitrary manner:- “a. If the defendant satisfies the Court that he has a substantial defence, that is, a defence that is likely to succeed, the plaintiff is not entitled to leave to sign judgment, and the defendant is entitled to unconditional leave to defend the suit; b. if the defendant raises triable issues indicating that he has a fair or reasonable defence, although not a positively good defence, the plaintiff is not entitled to sign judgment, and the defendant is ordinarily enti

Jindal Stainless Ltd. vs State of Haryana - Supreme Court Judgment

Jindal Stainless Ltd. & Anr. vs State of Haryana - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2016 -    On 11th November, 2016, in the case of Jindal Stainless Ltd. & Anr. vs State of Haryana & Ors. [Civil Appeal No.3453 of 2002 Etc. Etc.], while examining the powers of the State Legislature under Entry 52 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution to levy taxes on the “entry of goods into local areas comprising the States”, a nine Judge Bench inter alia interpreted Articles 301 to 304 comprising Part XIII of the Constitution and dealt with various issues such as whether these levies were violative of the constitutionally recognised right to free trade commerce and intercourse guaranteed under Article 301 of the Constitution; whether such levies were discriminatory and, therefore, violative of Article 304(a) of the Constitution; and whether absence of Presidential sanction in terms of Article 304(b) of the Constitution is also a ground of challenge to such levies imposed

State Bank of Patiala vs Mukesh Jain - Supreme Court Important Judgment

State Bank of Patiala vs Mukesh Jain - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2016 -    On 8th November, 2016, in the case of State Bank of Patiala vs Mukesh Jain & Anr. [Civil Appeal No.210 of 2007], it was held that the Debt Recovery Tribunal constituted under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 Act has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal as per Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 even if the amount involved is less than Rs 10 lakh. However, it was clarified that “the said appellate jurisdiction need not be misunderstood with the original jurisdiction of the Tribunal.”

Satya Pal Anand vs State of M.P - Supreme Court Important Judgment

Satya Pal Anand vs State of M.P - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2016 -    On 26th October, 2016, in the case of Satya Pal Anand vs State of M.P & Ors. [Civil Appeal No.6673 of 2014], a three Judge Bench held that once a document is registered, it is not open to any Authority, under the Registration Act of 1908 to cancel the registration. “The remedy of appeal provided under the Act of 1908, in Part XII, in particular Section 72, is limited to the inaction or refusal by the Registering Officer to register a document. The power conferred on the Registrar by virtue of Section 68 cannot be invoked to cancel the registration of documents already registered.”

State of Punjab & Ors. vs Jagjit Singh - Supreme Court Important Judgment

State of Punjab & Ors. vs Jagjit Singh - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2016 -    On 26th October, 2016, in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. vs Jagjit Singh & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 213 of 2013], the legal parameters with reference to the application of the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’, in relation to temporary employees (dailywage employees, ad-hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and the like) were examined by the Supreme Court. All the concerned temporary employees in the present set of appeals were appointed against posts which were also available in the regular cadre / establishment; and were being randomly deputed to discharge duties and responsibilities, which at some point in time, were assigned to regular employees. Likewise, regular employees holding substantive posts, were also posted to discharge the same work, which was assigned to temporary employees, from time to time. It was accordingly held that there was

Ashok Kumar vs State of Bihar - Supreme Court Important Judgment

Ashok Kumar & Anr. vs State of Bihar - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2016 -    On 21st October, 2016, in the case of Ashok Kumar & Anr. vs State of Bihar & Ors. [Civil Appeal No.9092 of 2012], wherein selections made by promotion from Class IV posts to Class III posts in the District Court of Muzaffarpur were under challenge, a three Judge Bench held that “if the appellants were aggrieved by the decision to hold a fresh process, they did not espouse their remedy. Instead, they participated in the fresh process of selection and it was only upon being unsuccessful that they challenged the result in the writ petition. This was clearly not open to the appellants. The principle of estoppel would operate.”

TANGEDCO vs CSEPDI - Supreme Court Case

Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd. [TANGEDCO] Rep. By its Chairman & Managing Director and Anr. etc. vs CSEPDI–Trishe Consortium - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2016 -    On 18th October, 2016, in the case of Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd. [TANGEDCO] Rep. By its Chairman & Managing Director and Anr. etc. vs CSEPDI–Trishe Consortium, Rep. By its Managing Director & Anr. [Civil Appeal Nos.10182 – 10183 of 2016], wherein it was alleged that the evaluation of price bids in response to a tender floated by appellant-Corporation was ex-facie defective, as the financial Consultant appointed had loaded certain charges as a consequence of which the price had gone up, the Supreme Court observed that it cannot sit in appeal over the financial consultant’s assessment and on facts, the evaluation report in question was neither ex-facie erroneous nor could it be perceived as flawed for being perverse or absurd.  The Bench observed that “in

Hiral P. Harsora vs Kusum Narottamdas Harsora - Supreme Court Important Judgment

Hiral P. Harsora vs Kusum Narottamdas Harsora - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2016 -    On 6th October, 2016, in the case of Hiral P. Harsora and Ors vs Kusum Narottamdas Harsora and Ors. [Civil Appeal No.10084 of 2016], the Supreme Court struck down the words “adult male” before the word “person” in Section 2(q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, observing that “the words “adult male person” are contrary to the object of affording protection to women who have suffered from domestic violence “of any kind” and that “ these words discriminate between persons similarly situate, and far from being in tune with, are contrary to the object sought to be achieved by the 2005 Act.”  It was held that once the words “adult male” are struck down, the proviso to Section 2(q) of the 2005 Act [which carves out an exception to a situation of “respondent” not being an adult male], has no independent existence, having being rendered otiose, and also stands deleted.

Narendra vs K. Meena - Supreme Court Important Judgment

Narendra vs K. Meena - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2016 -  On 6th October, 2016, in the case of Narendra vs K. Meena [Civil Appeal No.3253 of 2008], while negating the opinion of the High Court, that the wife has a legitimate expectation to see that the income of her husband is used for her and not for the family members of the husband, the Court observed that “a son, brought up and given education by his parents, has a moral and legal obligation to take care and maintain the parents, when they become old and when they have either no income or have a meagre income.” “In India, generally people do not subscribe to the western thought, where, upon getting married or attaining majority, the son gets separated from the family” and “a son maintaining his parents is absolutely normal in Indian culture and ethos.” It was held that “if a wife makes an attempt to deviate from the normal practice and normal custom of the society, she must have some justifiable reason for that.” Observing th

A. Ayyasamy vs A. Paramasivam - Supreme Court Important Judgment

 A. Ayyasamy vs A. Paramasivam - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2016 -    On 4th October, 2016, in the case of A. Ayyasamy vs A. Paramasivam & Ors. [Civil Appeal Nos. 8245 – 8246 of 2016], it was held that “mere allegation of fraud simplicitor may not be a ground to nullify the effect of arbitration agreement between the parties.” It was held that when the case of fraud is set up by one of the parties and on that basis that party wants to wriggle out of that arbitration agreement, a strict and meticulous inquiry into the allegations of fraud is needed and only when the Court is satisfied that the allegations are of serious and complicated nature that it would be more appropriate for the Court to deal with the subject matter rather than relegating the parties to arbitration, then alone such an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 should be rejected.

Syeda Rahimunnisa vs Malan Bi - Supreme Court Important Judgment

 Syeda Rahimunnisa vs Malan Bi - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2016 -    On 3rd October, 2016, in the case of Syeda Rahimunnisa vs Malan Bi (Dead) by L.Rs. & Anr. Etc. [Civil Appeal Nos. 2875 – 2879 of 2010], while examining the jurisdiction of the High Court to remand a case to the trial court, it was held “in order to claim remand of the case to the trial court, it is necessary for the appellant to first raise such plea and then make out a case of remand on facts. The power of the appellate court to remand the case to subordinate court is contained in order XLI Rule 23, 23-A and 25 of CPC. It is, therefore, obligatory upon the appellant to bring the case under any of these provisions before claiming a remand. The appellate court is required to record reasons as to why it has taken recourse to any one out of the three Rules of Order XLI of CPC for remanding the case to the trial court.” In instant case, in the absence of any ground taken by the respondents before the first appe

M.C. Mehta vs Union of India - Supreme Court

 M.C. Mehta vs Union of India - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2017 -    On 29th March, 2017, in the case of M.C. Mehta vs Union of India & Ors. [I.A. Nos. 487/2017, 491/2017, 494/207, 489/2017, 495/2017 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.13029 of 1985], issue pertaining to the sale and registration and therefore the commercial interests of manufacturers and dealers of such vehicles that do not meet the Bharat Stage-IV ('BS-IV') emission standards as on 1st April, 2017 was examined keeping in mind the potential health hazard of such vehicles being introduced on the road.  It was observed that “the number of such vehicles may be small compared to the overall number of vehicles in the country but the health of the people is far, far more important than the commercial interests of the manufacturers or the loss that they are likely to suffer in respect of the so-called small number of such vehicles.”  While observing that the manufacturers of such vehicles were fully aware that even

Union of India vs BESCO Ltd. - Supreme Court

 Union of India vs BESCO Ltd. - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2017 -    On 27th March, 2017, in the case of Union of India vs BESCO Ltd. [Civil Appeal No.4483 of 2017], while examining the issue as to whether the Chief Justice of a High Court or any person or institution designated by him, while exercising power under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is bound to nominate an arbitrator as specified in the agreement for arbitration, it was held that “though an arbitrator is specified in the agreement for arbitration, if circumstances so warrant, the Chief Justice or the designated Judge is free to appoint an independent arbitrator, having due regard to the qualification, if any, and other aspects as required under Section 11(8) of the Act.” 

K. Sitaram vs CFL Capital Financial Service Ltd. - Supreme Court

 K. Sitaram & Anr. vs CFL Capital Financial Service Ltd. - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2017 -    On 21st March, 2017, in the case of K. Sitaram & Anr. vs CFL Capital Financial Service Ltd. & Anr. [Criminal Appeal No.2285 of 2011], it was held that “when a person files a complaint and supports it on oath, rendering himself liable to prosecution and imprisonment if it is false, he is entitled to be believed unless there is some apparent reason for disbelieving him; and he is entitled to have the persons, against whom he complains, brought before the court and tried. The only condition requisite for the issue of process is that the complainant’s deposition must show some sufficient ground for proceeding.” It was further held that “unless the Magistrate is satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding with the complaint or sufficient material to justify the issue of process, he should not pass the order of issue of process. Where the complainant, who instituted

Om Prakash & Anr. vs Mishri Lal - Supreme Court

 Om Prakash & Anr. vs Mishri Lal (Dead) Represented by his Lr. Savitri Devi - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2017 -    On 21st March, 2017, in the case of Om Prakash & Anr. vs Mishri Lal (Dead) Represented by his Lr. Savitri Devi [Civil Appeal No.4309 of 2017], it was held that “a suit for eviction of a tenant can be maintained by one of the co-owners and it would be no defence to the tenant to question the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the other co-owners were not joined as parties to the suit. The judicially propounded proposition is that when the property forming the subject matter of eviction proceedings is owned by several co-owners, every co-owner owns every part and every bit of the joint property along with others and thus it cannot be said that he is only a part owner or a fractional owner of the property and that he can alone maintain a suit for eviction of the tenant without joining the other co-owners if such other co-owners do not object.” 

Secretary to Govt. Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Secretariat and Anr. vs A. Singamuthu

 Secretary to Govt. Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Secretariat and Anr. vs A. Singamuthu - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2017 -     On 7th March, 2017, in the case of Secretary to Govt. Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Secretariat and Anr. vs A. Singamuthu [Civil Appeal No.3770 of 2017], it was observed that “generally, while directing that temporary or part-time appointments be regularised or made permanent, the courts are swayed by the long period of service rendered by the employees. However, this may not be always a correct approach to adopt especially when the scheme of regularisation is missing from the rule book and regularisation casts huge financial implications on public exchequer.” 

Hussain and Anr. vs Union of India - Supreme Court

 Hussain and Anr. vs Union of India - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2017 -    On 9th March, 2017, in the case of Hussain and Anr. vs Union of India [Criminal Appeal No.509 of 2017], the Chief Justices of all High Courts were asked to forthwith take appropriate steps consistent with the directions of the Supreme Court in earlier cases and Resolution of Chief Justices’ Conference and to have appropriate monitoring mechanism in place on the administrative side as well as on the judicial side for speeding up disposal of cases of undertrials pending in subordinate courts and appeals pending in the High Courts. It was inter alia directed as follows:- “(i) The High Courts may issue directions to subordinate courts that – (a) Bail applications be disposed of normally within one week; (b) Magisterial trials, where accused are in custody, be normally concluded within six months and sessions trials where accused are in custody be normally concluded within two years; (c) Efforts be made to disp

Imax Corporation vs M/s E-City Entertainment (I) Pvt. Ltd. - Supreme Court

 Imax Corporation vs M/s E-City Entertainment (I) Pvt. Ltd. - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2017 -    On 10th March, 2017, in the case of Imax Corporation vs M/s E-City Entertainment (I) Pvt. Ltd. [Civil Appeal No.3885 of 2017], while addressing the issue as to whether the seat of arbitration itself is a decisive factor to exclude Part-I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, it was held that “the relationship between the seat of arbitration and the law governing arbitration is an integral one.” It was held that “the place of arbitration determines the law that will apply to the arbitration and related matters like challenges to the award etc.” and “if in pursuance of the arbitration agreement, the arbitration took place outside India, there is a clear exclusion of Part-I of the Arbitration Act.” In the present case, the parties expressly agreed that the arbitration will be conducted according to the ICC Rules of Arbitration and left the place of arbitration to be chosen by

Krishna Veni Nagam vs Harish Nagam - Supreme Court

 Krishna Veni Nagam vs Harish Nagam - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2017 -     On 9th March, 2017, in the case of Krishna Veni Nagam vs Harish Nagam [Transfer Petition (Civil) No.1912 of 2014], it was directed that “in matrimonial or custody matters or in proceedings between parties to a marriage or arising out of disputes between parties to a marriage, wherever the defendants/respondents are located outside the jurisdiction of the court, the court where proceedings are instituted, may examine whether it is in the interest of justice to incorporate any safeguards for ensuring that summoning of defendant/respondent does not result in denial of justice.” It was further directed that “order incorporating such safeguards may be sent along with the summons. The safeguards can be:- i) Availability of video conferencing facility; ii) Availability of legal aid service; iii) Deposit of cost for travel, lodging and boarding in terms of Order XXV CPC; and iv) E-mail address/phone number, if an

National Securities Depository Ltd. vs Securities and Exchange Board of India

 National Securities Depository Ltd. vs Securities and Exchange Board of India - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2017 -    On 7th March, 2017, in the case of National Securities Depository Ltd. vs Securities and Exchange Board of India [Civil Appeal No.5173 of 2006], while examining the question as to whether an administrative circular issued by SEBI under Section 11(1) of the Securities Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, can be the On 7th March, 2017, in the case of National Securities Depository Ltd. vs Securities and Exchange Board of India [Civil Appeal No.5173 of 2006], while examining the question as to whether an administrative circular issued by SEBI under Section 11(1) of the Securities Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, can be the 

Sasi (D) Through Lrs. vs Aravindakshan Nair - Supreme Court

 Sasi (D) Through Lrs. vs Aravindakshan Nair - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2017 -    On 3rd March, 2017, in the case of Sasi (D) Through Lrs. vs Aravindakshan Nair and Others [SLP (Civil) No. 16331 of 2017 (arising out of CC 4339 / 2017) ], it was observed that “an endeavour has to be made by the High Courts to dispose of the applications for review with expediency. It is the duty and obligation of a litigant to file a review and not to keep it defective as if a defective petition can be allowed to remain on life support, as per his desire. It is the obligation of the counsel filing an application for review to cure or remove the defects at the earliest. The prescription of limitation for filing an application for review has its own sanctity. The Registry of the High Courts has a duty to place the matter before the Judge/Bench with defects so that there can be pre-emptory orders for removal of defects. An adroit method cannot be adopted to file an application for review and wait t

Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik vs Mrs. Pradnya Prakash Khadekar - Supreme Court

 Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik and Anr. vs Mrs. Pradnya Prakash Khadekar - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2017 -    On 1st March, 2017, in the case of Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik and Anr. vs Mrs. Pradnya Prakash Khadekar and Ors [SLP (C) Nos. 25331-33 of 2015], a three Judge Bench observed that the Supreme Court must view with disfavour any attempt by a litigant to abuse the process.   While observing that Courts across the legal system - this Court not being an exception – are choked with litigation and “frivolous and groundless filings constitute a serious menace to the administration of justice” with the process of dispensing justice being “misused by the unscrupulous to the detriment of the legitimate”, it was held that “this tendency can be curbed only if courts across the system adopt an institutional approach which penalizes such behavior. Liberal access to justice does not mean access to chaos and indiscipline. A strong message must be conveyed that courts of justice will not be allowed to b

T.A. Kathiru Kunju vs Jacob Mathai - Supreme Court

 T.A. Kathiru Kunju vs Jacob Mathai - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2017 -     On 16th February, 2017, in the case of T.A. Kathiru Kunju vs Jacob Mathai & Anr. [Civil Appeal No.3860 of 2007] wherein the respondent had lodged a complaint before the Bar Council that he had engaged appellant as an Advocate to file a case under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for bouncing of a cheque, but instead of filing such a complaint, the appellant felt it apposite to file a complaint case under Section 420 IPC, and also did not return the cheque to the respondent; the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India had found the appellantAdvocate guilty of gross negligence in discharge of his professional service to the respondent. While setting aside the order of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India, it was held that the act of the appellant could not be treated to be in the realm of gross negligence and was only one of negligence.

Shyam Narayan Chouksey vs Union of India

 Shyam Narayan Chouksey vs Union of India - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2017 -     On 14th February, 2017, in the case of Shyam Narayan Chouksey vs Union of India [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 855 of 2016], with reference to its earlier order dated 30th November, 2016, it was clarified that when the National Anthem is sung or played in the storyline of a feature film or as a part of the newsreel or documentary, “apart from what has been stated in the order dated 30.11.2016, the audience need not stand.” 

Ajay Singh vs State of Chattisgarh - Supreme Court Important Judgment

 Ajay Singh vs State of Chattisgarh - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2017 -    On 6th January, 2017, in the case of Ajay Singh and Anr. and Etc. vs State of Chattisgarh and Anr. [Criminal Appeal Nos. 32-33 of 2017], it was observed that “a trial Judge should remember that he has immense responsibility as he has a lawful duty to record the evidence in the prescribed manner keeping in mind the command postulated in Section 309 of the CrPC and pronounce the judgment as provided under the Code. A Judge in charge of the trial has to be extremely diligent so that no dent is created in the trial and its eventual conclusion.” 

Gopal and Sons (HUF) vs CIT Kolkata

 Gopal and Sons (HUF) vs CIT Kolkata -XI - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2017 -    On 4th January, 2017, in the case of Gopal and Sons (HUF) vs CIT Kolkata -XI [Civil Appeal No. 12274 of 2016], it was held that even if a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) is not a registered shareholder in a company, as per the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, once the payment is received by the HUF and a shareholder is a member of the said HUF and he has substantial interest in the HUF, the payment made to the HUF shall constitute deemed dividend within the meaning of clause (e) of Section 2(22) of the Act.

Allahabad Bank vs Krishna Narayan Tewari - Supreme Court Important Judgment

 Allahabad Bank vs Krishna Narayan Tewari - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2017 -    On 2nd January, 2017, in the case of Allahabad Bank & Ors. vs Krishna Narayan Tewari [Civil Appeal No.7600 of 2014], it was held that the though “it is true that a writ court is very slow in interfering with the findings of facts recorded by a Departmental Authority on the basis of evidence available on record”, “but it is equally true that in a case where the Disciplinary Authority records a finding that is unsupported by any evidence whatsoever or a finding which no reasonable person could have arrived at, the writ court would be justified if not duty bound to examine the matter and grant relief in appropriate cases. The writ court will certainly interfere with disciplinary enquiry or the resultant orders passed by the competent authority on that basis if the enquiry itself was vitiated on account of violation of principles of natural justice, as is alleged to be the position in the present cas

Abhiram Singh vs C.D. Commachen (Dead) - Supreme Court Important Judgment

 Abhiram Singh vs C.D. Commachen (Dead) - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2017 -    On 2nd January, 2017, in the case of Abhiram Singh vs C.D. Commachen (Dead) by Lrs. & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 37 of 1992], while interpreting Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, a seven Judge Bench, per majority, inter alia held that the “provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 are required to be read and appreciated in the context of simultaneous and contemporaneous amendments inserting sub-section (3A) in Section 123 of the Act and inserting Section 153A in the Indian Penal Code.” It was held that “so read together, and for maintaining the purity of the electoral process and not vitiating it, sub-section (3) of Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 must be given a broad and purposive interpretation thereby bringing within the sweep of a corrupt practice any appeal made to an elector by a candidate or h

Krishna Kumar Singh vs State of Bihar - Supreme Court Important Judgment

 Krishna Kumar Singh vs State of Bihar - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2017 -    On 2nd January, 2017, in the case of Krishna Kumar Singh & Anr. vs State of Bihar & Ors. [Civil Appeal No.5875 of 1994], a seven-judge Bench examined the power of the Executive to make law through ordinance, and inter alia held per majority, that the power conferred upon the President under Article 123 of the Constitution and the Governor under Article 213 is legislative in character and “is conditional in nature” as “it can be exercised only when the legislature is not in session and subject to the satisfaction of the President or, as the case may be, of the Governor that circumstances exist which render it necessary to take immediate action.” It was held that “an Ordinance which is promulgated under Article 123 or Article 213 has the same force and effect as a law enacted by the legislature but it must (i) be laid before the legislature; and (ii) it will cease to operate six weeks after the le

Vitusah Oberoi and Ors. vs Court of its own motion - Supreme Court

 Vitusah Oberoi and Ors. vs Court of its own motion - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2017 -    On 2nd January, 2017, in the case of Vitusah Oberoi and Ors. vs Court of its own motion [Criminal Appeal No. 1234 of 2007], it was held that there is nothing in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 or in Article 215 of the Constitution “which can be said to empower the High Court to initiate proceedings suo-motu or otherwise for the contempt of a superior Court like the Supreme Court of India.” It was observed that “one of the recognised attributes of a court of record is the power to punish for its contempt and the contempt of courts subordinate to it. That is precisely why Articles 129 and 215, while declaring the Supreme Court and the High Courts as Courts of Record, recognise the power vested in them to punish for their own contempt. The use of the expression “including” in the said provisions is explanatory in character. It signifies that the Supreme Court and the High Courts shall, as Cou

Imtiyaz Ahmad vs State of U.P. - Supreme Court Important Judgment

 Imtiyaz Ahmad vs State of U.P. - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2017 -  On 2nd January, 2017, in the case of Imtiyaz Ahmad vs State of U.P. & Ors. [Criminal Appeal Nos. 254 – 262 of 2012], while expressing concern with the pendency of cases before the High Courts, where proceedings were stayed at the stage of the registration of an FIR, investigation, framing of charges or during trial, a three Judge Bench observed that it is necessary to provide for the required judge strength in every State district judiciary so as to facilitate the creation of infrastructure, and inter alia directed as follows:- (i) Until the National Court Management Systems Committee (NCMSC) “formulates a scientific method for determining the basis for computing the required judge strength of the district judiciary, the judge strength shall be computed for each state, in accordance with the interim approach indicated in the note submitted by the Chairperson, NCMSC”; ii) “NCMSC is requested to endeavour the

N. Parameswaran Unni vs G. Kannan

 N. Parameswaran Unni vs G. Kannan - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2017 -    On 1st March, 2017, in the case of N. Parameswaran Unni vs G. Kannan and Another [Criminal Appeal No.455 of 2006], it was held that generally there is no bar under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 “to send a reminder notice to the drawerof the cheque and usually such notice cannot be construed as an admission of nonservice of the first notice”.  

State of Karnataka vs Selvi J. Jayalalitha - Supreme Court Case

 State of Karnataka vs Selvi J. Jayalalitha - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2017 -    On 14th February, 2017, in the case of State of Karnataka vs Selvi J. Jayalalitha & Ors. [Criminal Appeal Nos.300 - 303 of 2017], wherein charges were framed against A1 – former Chief Minister of the State of Tamil Nadu and the co-accused viz. A2, A3 and A4 (respondents), for commission of alleged offences punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and further under Section 120-B and Section 109 of IPC, it was held that A1 to A4 had “entered into a conspiracy and in furtherance of the same, A1 who was a public servant at the relevant time had come into possession of assets disproportionate to the known sources of her income during the check period and had got the same dispersed in the names of A2 to A4 and the firms & companies involved to hold these on her behalf with a masked front.” Furthermore, it was held that “the charge of abet

Allokam Peddabbayya and Another vs Allahabad Bank - Supreme Court

 Allokam Peddabbayya and Another vs Allahabad Bank - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2017 -     On 19th June, 2017, in the case of Allokam Peddabbayya and Another v. Allahabad Bank and Others [Civil Appeal Nos. 2763-2764 of 2008], it was held that the right to enforce a claim for equity of redemption is a statutory right under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. It necessarily presupposes the existence of a mortgage. The right to redeem can stand extinguished either by the act of the parties or by operation of the law in the form of a Decree of the Court under the proviso to Section 60 of the Act.  It was further held that “if the right to redeem stood extinguished by operation of the law under the proviso to Section 60 of the Act, prior to the period of limitation, it cannot be contended that the right could nonetheless be enforced anytime before the expiry of limitation of 30 years. If there remained no subsisting mortgage, it is difficult to fathom what was to be redeemed.”  Accord

Binoy Viswam vs Union of India - Supreme Court Judgment

 Binoy Viswam vs Union of India - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2017 -    On 9th June, 2017, in the case of Binoy Viswam v. Union of India & Ors. [Writ Petition (Civil) No.247 of 2017], the Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of Section 139AA of Income Tax Act, 1961 (a provision inserted by amendment to the said Act vide Finance Act, 2017). The effect of this provision is that every person who desires to obtain PAN card or who is an assessee has to necessarily enrol for Aadhaar. It makes obtaining of Aadhaar card compulsory for those persons who are income-tax assessees. Proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 139AA of the Act stipulates the consequences of failure to intimate the Aadhaar number. Challenge was made to this compulsive nature of provision inasmuch as with the introduction of the aforesaid provision, no discretion was left with the income-tax assessees insofar as enrolment under the Aadhaar (Targeting Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits

Shivashakthi Sugar Limited vs Shee Renuka Sugar - Supreme Court

 Shivashakthi Sugar Limited vs Shee Renuka Sugar - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2017 -    On 9th May, 2017, in the case of Shivashakthi Sugar Limited v. Shee Renuka Sugar Limited & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 5040 of 2014], the Supreme Court observed that interface between law and economics is much more relevant in today’s time when the country has ushered into the era of economic liberalization, which is also termed as ‘globalisation’ of economy and India is on the road of economic growth” and further that it has become the bounden duty of the Court to have the economic analysis and economic impact of its decisions. It was however clarified that while taking into account these considerations specific provisions of law are not to be ignored.  It was held that the “first duty of the Court is to decide the case by applying the statutory provisions. However, on the application of law and while interpreting a particular provision, economic impact/effect of a decision, wherever warranted

State of Jharkhand through SP, CBI vs Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav - Supreme Court

 State of Jharkhand through SP, CBI vs Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav  - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2017 -    On 8th May, 2017, in the case of State of Jharkhand through SP, CBI v. Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav [Criminal Appeal No. 394 of 2017], in appeals arising out of three separate judgments and orders of the High Court discharging three accused persons namely; Lalu Prasad Yadav, Sajal Chakraborty and Dr. Jagannath Mishra on ground of their conviction in one of the criminal cases arising out of fodder scam of erstwhile State of Bihar, question arose for consideration as to whether in view of Article 20(2) of Constitution and Section 300 Cr.PC, it was a case of prosecution and punishment for the “same offence” more than once. While observing that “the modus operandi being the same would not make it a single offence when the offences are separate” and “there may be a conspiracy in general one and a separate one” and “there may be larger conspiracy and smaller conspiracy whic

Nirbhaya Gang Rape Case - Mukesh & Anr vs State for NCT of Delhi - Supreme Court

 Nirbhaya Gang Rape Case - Mukesh & Anr vs State for NCT of Delhi - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2017 -    On 5th May, 2017, in the case of Mukesh & Anr v. State for NCT of Delhi & Ors. [Criminal Appeal Nos.607-608 of 2017], the prosecutrix had been brutally gang-raped in a moving bus in front of her helpless male friend (PW1) who was also assaulted. The prosecutrix was subjected to unnatural sex and her private parts and internal organs were also seriously injured by inserting iron rod and hand in the rectal and vaginal region. The prosecutrix and PW1 were thereafter thrown out of the moving bus by the side of the road. After examining the nature of the crime which ultimately led to the death of the prosecutrix and manner in which it was committed, a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court confirmed the death penalty imposed upon the accused-appellants by the lower Courts.  In a common judgment delivered by two Hon’ble Judges, it was held that the brutal, barbaric and d