Important Supreme Court Decisions of November 2013

Administrative Law – Suspension Order – Res judicata – Legal Malice – [Union of India Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, November 22, 2013] (2013) 16 SCC 147 : 2013 (12) SCR 629 : 2013 (14) Scale 323 : JT 2013 (15) SC 200 : 2014 (140) FLR 737 : 2014 (2) SCT 70 : 2014 (134) AIC 41 : 2014 (2) PLJR 286 : 2014 (2) JLJR 35 : 2014 All SCR 359 : 2014 (3) Cal. H.C.N. 128


Agricultural Produce – Market Fee – Manufacture of castor oil out of castor seeds – Levy of market fee on castor seeds – Validity – Held, Respondent-company became owner of the property only once the exact weight of the castor seeds was ascertained and purchase voucher was obtained – Sale of castor seeds thus took place within the market area of appellant- APMC and accordingly appellant was authorized to charge fees from respondent. [Agricultural Produce Market Committee Vs. Biotor Industries Ltd. & Anr., November 29, 2013] (2014) 3 SCC 732 : 2013 (14) Scale 546 : JT 2013 (15) SC 415 : 2014 (1) RJ 1 : 2014 (5) RCR (Civil) 186  : 2014 (2) RAJ 276


Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976S. 38-A (As amended w.e.f. 21.4.1984) – Bangalore Development Authority (Civic Authority Site) Allotment Rules, 1989 – R. 3 – Grant of area reserved for civic amenities – Civic amenity site earmarked for `bank’, allotted for installing a petrol pump – Held, Under S. 38A (1), BDA would have the authority to lease, sell or otherwise transfer any area reserved for the purpose for which such area is reserved, and no other – In case, a disposition is made for a purpose other than the one for which it is reserved, it shall be null and void – High Court has rightly declared the allotment of civic amenity site in question for establishment of a petrol pump as null and void. [Purushotham Vs. State of Karnataka; November 29, 2013]


Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 – R. 10 (6) – Suspension Order – CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 are a self contained code and the order of suspension can be examined in the light of the statutory provisions to determine as to whether the suspension order was justified. [Union of India Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, November 22, 2013]


Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – S. 96(3) & O. 43 R. 1A – Appeal against consent decree – Maintainability – Held, When decree is passed on the basis of compromise without raising any dispute to the compromise, appeal would not be maintainable – But if the decree is passed after holding an enquiry with regard to the validity of the compromise, decree cannot be called consent decree, and hence appeal would be maintainable. [Daljit Kaur Vs. Muktar Steels Pvt Ltd., November 19, 2013] (2013) 16 SCC 607 : 2013 (14) Scale 527 : 2014 (1) ICC 684 : 2014 (2) ALT 1 : 2014 (2) Law Herald 1172 : 2014 (2) WLN 9 : 2014 (1) JCR 157 : 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 625 : 2014 (1) RAJ 245 : 2014 (133) AIC 253 : 2014 (1) CTC 105 : 2014 (1) CivCC 538 : 2014 (122) RD 390 : 2014 (1) Law Herald (SC) 668 : 2014 (102) ALR 275 : 2014 (1) UAD 281 : 2014 (1) RJ 49 : 2014 All SCR 1823 : 2014 (2) Cal. H.C.N. 142 : 2014 (118) CutLT 299 : 2014 (1) ACJ (SC) 276


Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 2 Rule 2 – Applicability of – In respect of two suits filed by the respondent – Held, the object of Or.II, r.2 is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and not to vex the parties over and again in a litigative process. [State Bank of India Vs. Gracure Pharmaceuticals Ltd; November 22, 2013] (2014) 3 SCC 595 : AIR  2014 SC 731 : JT 2013 (15) SC 316 : 2013 (12) SCR 617 : 2013 (14) Scale 392 : 2014 (1) ICC 674 : 2014 (1) CivCC 653 : 2014 (2) MPLJ 696 : 2014 (4) Mh. LJ 20 : 2015 (1) WBLR 203 : 2013(8) MLJ 535 : 2014 (1) JCR 122 : 2014 (133) AIC 6 : 2014 (1) ALT 25 : 2014 (1) RAJ 558 : 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 889 : 2014 (140) DRJ 6 : 2014 (122) RD 280 : 2014(2) PLJR 65 : 2014 AIR (SCW) 247 : 2013 (2) UD 664 : 2014 (102) ALR 223 : 2014 (1) JLJR 613 : 2014 (1) UAD 211 : 2014 (1) RJ 65 : 2014 All SCR 135 : 2014 (2) Andh LD 113 : 2014 (4) Law Herald (SC) 2978 : 2014 (2) Rajdhani LR 716 : 2014 (2) Cal. HCN 101 : 2014 (1) JBCJ 395 : 2013 (6) CTC 789 : 2014 (118) CutLT 59 : 2014 (1) Him. L.R. 269 : 2014 (1) ACJ 532


Contract Law – Government Contracts – Tenders – Cancellation of Tender – Deficiencies in the Tender Process – Held, Submission of a tender in response to a notice inviting such tenders is no more than making an offer which the State or its agencies are under no obligation to accept Bidders participating in the tender process cannot, therefore, insist that their tenders should be accepted simply because a given tender is the highest or lowest depending upon whether the contract is for sale of public property or for execution of works on behalf of Government All that participating bidders are entitled to is a fair, equal and non-discriminatory treatment in the matter of evaluation of their tenders – To that extent the tenderer has an enforceable right. [Maa Binda Express Carrier Vs. Northeast Frontier Railway; November 29, 2013] AIR 2014 SC 390 : (2014) 3 SCC 760 : 2013 (12) SCR 529 : 2013 (14) Scale 226 : 2013 (8) MLJ 540 : 2013 AIR (SCW) 6779 : 2014 (1) BC 76 : 2014 (2) GLD 19 : 2014 (5) RCR (Civil) 217 : 2014 All SCR 347 : 2014 (2) Rajdhani LR 682 : 2014 (2) Cal. H.C.N. 96 : 2014 (1) JBCJ 404 : 2014 (2) RAJ 154 : AIR 2014 (3) Jhar R. 500 : 2014 (1) JCR 154 : 2014 (1) WLN 28 : 2014 (4) GauLT 1


Contract Law – Government Contracts – Tenders – Railway Tender – Deficiencies in the Tender Process – Cancellation of – Whether proper – Held, there were serious deficiencies in the entire tender process, which would have resulted in substantial financial loss to Railways and it was neither in public interest nor necessitated by any legal compulsion – Therefore, the decision to cancel the tender process was in no way discriminatory or mala fide – It did not violate any fundamental right of the appellant nor could the action of respondent be termed unreasonable so as to warrant any interference from the Court Costs. [Maa Binda Express Carrier Vs. Northeast Frontier Railway; November 29, 2013]


Contract Law – Tenders – Terms of Tender – Judicial Review – Held, Power exercised by the Government and its instrumentalities in regard to allotment of contract is subject to judicial review at the instance of an aggrieved party – Award of a contract is essentially a commercial transaction which must be determined on the basis of consideration that are relevant to such commercial decision – This implies that terms subject to which tenders are invited are not open to the judicial scrutiny unless it is found that the same have been tailor made to benefit any particular tenderer or class of tenderers Judicial review. [Maa Binda Express Carrier Vs. Northeast Frontier Railway; November 29, 2013]


Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – S. 174 – Inquest report – Held, Neither the inquest report nor the post-mortem report can be termed as basic or substantive evidence – Any discrepancy occurring therein cannot be termed as fatal or suspicious circumstance which would warrant benefit of doubt to the accused. [Madhu @ Madhuranatha & Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka; November 28, 2013] AIR 2014 SC 394 : (2014) 12 SCC 419 : 2013 (12) SCR 947 : JT 2013 (15) SC 58 : 2013 (14) Scale 502 : 2013 AIR (SCW) 6766 : 2013 (6) RAJ 547 : 2014 (1) RCR (Criminal) 203 : 2014 (133) AIC 87 : 2014 (1) Cri.CC 518 : 2014 (1) Air Kar R 305 : 2014 (2) KantLJ 158 : 2014 (1) Law Herald (SC) 485 : 2014(6) SCC(Cri) 765 : 2014 (84) ACrC 329 : 2014 (3) AIR Jhar R. 489 : 2014 (1) JCC 809 : 2014 (1) NCC 346 : 2014 All SCR 299 : 2014 (1) Andh LD (Criminal) 699 : 2014 (3) AICLR 397 : 2014 (1) JBCJ 42 : 2014 (1) ACJ (SC) 384 : 2014 (1) ECrC 338 : 2014 (sup) Cri. L.R. 248 : 2013 (4) CCR 530


Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – S. 313 – Examination under – Obligation of the accused – Held, It is obligatory on the part of the accused while being examined u/s.313 CrPC, to furnish some explanation with respect to the incriminating circumstances associated with him – The court must take note of such explanation even in a case of circumstantial evidence, to decide whether or not the chain of circumstances is complete. [Madhu @ Madhuranatha & Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka; November 28, 2013]


Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – S. 320 & 482 – Power under – Compounding of offences – Inherent powers of High Court – Distinction between – Discussed – Administration of Criminal Justice. [State Of Rajasthan Vs. Shambhu Kewat, November 28, 2013]


Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – S. 401 (3) r/w 386 (a) – Revisional Power of High Court – Explained – High Court converting the acquittal into conviction – Held, High Court while exercising the powers of revision can exercise all those powers which have been conferred on the court of appeal u/s 386 but, in view of sub-s. (3) of S. 401, while exercising such power, High Court cannot convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. [Ganesha Vs. Sharanappa; November 19, 2013] AIR 2014 SC 1198 : (2014) 1 SCC 87 : 2013 (12) SCR 400 : 2013 (14) Scale 59 : 2014 (1) SCC (Cri) 8 : JT 2013 (15) SC 163 : 2014 AIR (SCW) 615 : 2014 (1) Mh.LJ (Crl.) 199 : 2014 (1) AICLR 765 : 2014 ALL MR (Cri) 392 : 2014 Cri. L.R. 378 : 2014 (3) AIR Jhar R. 453 : 2014 (1) CCR 121 : 2014 (2) KantLJ 107 : 2014 (1) Air Kar R 689 : 2014 (1) Law Herald (SC) 865 : 2014 (2) Law Herald 1664 : 2014 (1) NCC 260 : 2014 (1) Andh LD (Criminal) 859 : 2014 (1) CalCriLR 257 : 2015 (1) RCR (Criminal) 474 : 2015 (1) RAJ 189


Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – S. 401 (3) r/w 386 (a) – Revision – In the instant case, High Court rightly came to the conclusion that it is one of the exceptional cases as the finding of acquittal is on a total misreading and perverse appreciation of evidence and rightly set aside the order of acquittal, but it gravely erred in converting the order of acquittal into that of conviction, instead of directing re-hearing by trial court – Order of High Court set aside, but, in the circumstances of the case, re-hearing by trial court declined. [Ganesha Vs. Sharanappa; November 19, 2013]


Constitution of India, 1950 – Arts. 14, 16 & 136 – Exercise of jurisdiction under – Explained. [Union of India Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, November 22, 2013]


Constitution of India, 1950 – Art. 21 – Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 – Ss. 12A, 13 & 14 – Human Rights – Rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual – Special Investigation Team (SIT) – ‘Aam Aadmi Party’ (AAP) Protest – Agitation by petitioners at Police station seeking registration of FIR in respect of an alleged occurrence of rape – NHRC directed to enquire into the complaint of the petitioners regarding violation of their fundamental rights. [Beenu Rawat Vs. Union of India; November 19, 2013] AIR 2014 SC 538 : 2013 (12) SCR 889 : (2013) 16 SCC 430 :  JT 2013 (15) SC 1; 2013 (14) SCALE 104 : AIR 2014 SCW 1 : 2014 (1) ALLMR 438 : 2014 (1) BCR 9 : 2013 (11) CPSC 19 : 2014 (1) JCR 95 : 2014 (6) SCC (Cri) 298 : 2014 (3) Cal. H.C.N. 147


Evidence – Circumstantial evidence – Appreciation of – Held, Conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence. [Madhu @ Madhuranatha & Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka; November 28, 2013]


Evidence – Discrepancies in depositions of witnesses – Appreciation of – Held: While appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the prosecution case must not prompt the court to reject the evidence in its entirety – The court is not supposed to give undue importance to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter, and shake the basic version of the prosecution witness. [Madhu @ Madhuranatha & Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka; November 28, 2013]


Evidence – Last seen together theory – Held, In cases where the accused was last seen with the deceased victim (last seen-together theory) just before the incident, it becomes the duty of the accused to explain the circumstances under which the death of the victim occurred. [Madhu @ Madhuranatha & Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka; November 28, 2013]


Evidence – Witness – Police witness – Appreciation of – Held, No prohibition to the effect that a policeman cannot be a witness or that his deposition cannot be relied upon if it inspires confidence. [Madhu @ Madhuranatha & Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka; November 28, 2013]


Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963 – Ss. 2(1)(i) and 28 – Gujarat Agricultural Produce Market Rules, 1965 – R. 48 – Agricultural Produce Market Fee – Manufacture of castor oil out of castor seeds – Extraction of castor oil leading to production of de-oiled cake, a by-product containing less than 1% castor oil – De-oiled cake then sold in the market – Levy of market fee on de-oiled cake – Validity – Held, The by- product of de-oiled cake is different from the oil cake as it contains oil less than 1% and it is not included in the Schedule to the Act for the purpose of charging market fee – The item which is mentioned is oil cake which is different and distinct from the de-oiled cake – No market fee could thus be levied by appellant-APMC on de-oiled cake. [Agricultural Produce Market Committee Vs. Biotor Industries Ltd. & Anr., November 29, 2013]


Income Tax Act, 1961 – S. 132B(4)(b) – Payment of interest on delayed assessment – Search conducted in house of appellant – Cash amount of Rs. 2,35,000/- recovered – Order passed u/s.132(5) on 31.5.1990 – Assessing Officer (A.O.) calculated tax liability and cash seized in search from appellant’s house appropriated – Order of A.O. set-aside by Tribunal – Revenue accepted the order of Tribunal – Appellant got refund of Rs.2,35,000/- alongwith interest from 4.3.1994 (date of last of the regular assessments by A.O.) until the date of refund – Claim of appellant-assessee for interest u/s.132B(4)(b) for the period from expiry of period of six months from the date of order under s.132(5) to the date of regular assessment order – Held, Order u/s.132(5) having been passed on 31.5.1990, six months expired on 30.11.1990 and the last of the regular assessments was done on 4.3.1994, hence, appellant entitled to claim simple interest u/s.132B(4)(b) from 1.12.1990 to 4.3.1994 at the rate of 15% per annum. [Chironjilal Sharma Huf Vs. Union of India, November 26, 2013] (2013) 360 ITR 237


Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – S. 2 (s) – A medical professional, whether a workman – Held, a medical professional, treating patients and diagnosing diseases cannot be termed as `workmen’ within meaning of s.2(s). [E. S. I. C Medical Officer’s Association Vs. E. S. I. C., November 21, 2013] 2014 (1) CLR 1; 2013 (11) CPSC 23


Legal malice – Renewal of Suspension after suspension order quashed by Tribunal – Legality of – Held, It was not permissible for appellants to pass any fresh order of suspension till the commencement of trial before criminal court – Subsequent order of suspension was a nullity – More so, the issue could not have been re- agitated by virtue of the application of doctrine of res judicata – It is a clear case of legal malice. [Union of India Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal; November 22, 2013]


Limitation Act, 1963 – S. 14 – Trademark Registration – Application for Rectification of the Registered Trade Mark – Dismissal on the ground of delay – Held, not justified – It prejudiced the rights of the appellant to have the case adjudicated on merits – Appellant was pursuing its remedy with due diligence, without brooking any delay – There was not even a slightest delay on his part in challenging the validity of the trade mark obtained by Respondent No. 1. [Lakha Ram Sharma Vs. Balar Marketing P. Ltd., November 27, 2013]


Penal Code, 1860 – S. 307 – Attempt to Murder – Compromise between parties on account of monetary compensation paid to the victim – Offence compounded by High Court – Whether proper – Held, Offence u/s.307 is non-compoundable – High Court compounded the offence by over-looking the `nature and gravity of the crime’ and `the societal impact’ – It accepted the compromise between parties without application of mind and wrongly took the view that it was a crime against `an individual’ and not `the society at large’ – Settlement by monetary compensation would not wipe off the crime against the accused – Taking of lenient view on serious offences, would defeat the objective of the criminal justice system – Matter remitted to High Court to decide the appeal on merit. [State Of Rajasthan Vs. Shambhu Kewat, November 28, 2013] 2013 (12) SCR 973 : 2013 (14) Scale 235 : 2013 AIR (SCW) 6853 : 2014 (4) SCC (Cri) 781 : 2013 (4) CCR 526 : 2014 (1) RCR (Criminal) 199 : 2013 (6) RAJ 543 : 2014 (133) AIC 15 : 2014 (1) Cri.CC 154 : 2014 (1) AICLR 236 : 2014 CriLJ 609 : 2014 RajCriC 9 : 2014 (4) SCC 149 : 2013 (2) UD 668 : 2014 (84) ACrC 400 : 2014 Cri. L.R. 98 : 2014 (2) JBCJ 366 : 2014 (1) ECrC 358 : 2014 (2) Mh.LJ (Crl.) 640 : 2014 ALL MR(Cri) 386


Penal Code, 1860 – Ss. 324, 154 &2 (d) r/w 200 – `Informant’ and `complainant’ – Distinction between – Explained. [Ganesha Vs. Sharanappa; November 19, 2013]


Penal Code, 1860 – Ss. 364, 302, 201 r/w34 –  Robbery and Murder – Prosecution case that with the motive of committing robbery, the three accused-appellants murdered the son of PW-22, robbed him, chopped off his head and buried the trunk of his body and threw the head and the weapon of offence in the river – On consideration of circumstantial evidence, both the courts below reached to a conclusion that the appellants had committed the crime – On facts, no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below – Conviction upheld. [Madhu @ Madhuranatha & Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka; November 28, 2013]


Penal Code, 1860 – Ss. 420 r/w34 – Case initiated by Magistrate on a protest complaint filed by first respondent – Two accused; A-1 and A2 – A-2 is divorced wife of A-1 – Summons issued against A-2 – Challenge to. [B. Chandrika Vs. Santhosh, November 21, 2013]


Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005Ss.2 (f) & 3 – “Live-in relationship” – If would amount to a “relationship in the nature of marriage” falling within the definition of “domestic relationship” u/s.2(f) – Failure to maintain a woman involved in such a relationship – If amounts to “domestic violence” within meaning of S. 3 – Held: All live-in- relationships are not relationships in the nature of marriage. [Indra Sarma Vs. V.K.V. Sarma; November 26, 2013] AIR 2014 (SC) 309 : (2013) 15 SCC 755 : JT 2013(15) SC 70 : 2013 (14) Scale 448 : 2013 AIR (SCW) 6783 : 2014(6) SCC(Cri) 593 : 2014 (1) Cri.CC 126 : 2014 ALL MR (Cri) 319 : 2014 (1) RLW 627 : 2014 (1) Law Herald 698 : 2014 (1) NCC 1 : 2013 (4) CCR 496 : 2014 (1) RCR (Criminal) 179 : 2013 (6) RAJ 504 : 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 263 : 2014 (1) CivCC 74 : 2014 (1) ALT (Crl.) 1 : 2014(133) AIC 225 : 2014 (1) AICLR 429 : 2013 (3) DMC 830 : 2014(1) MLJ (Criminal) 59 : 2014 (1) HLR 160 : 2014 (102) ALR 711 : 2014(1) Law Herald (SC) 80 : 2014(1) AIR Bom.R 615 : 2014(1) Bom.C.R (Cri.) 496 : 2014 RajCriC 21 : 2014(2) PLJR 1 : 2014(84) ACrC 290 : 2014(1) JLJR 549 : 2014 (1) Andh LD (Criminal) 662 : 2014 (1) CalCriLR 776 : 2014 Cri. L.R. 25 : 2014(1) JBCJ 272 : 2014(1) ECrC 304 : 2014 CutLT (Criminal) 394 : 2014(1) Apex Court Judgments (SC) 101


Res judicata – Doctrine of – Renewal of Suspension after suspension order quashed by Tribunal – Legality of – Held, It was not permissible for appellants to pass any fresh order of suspension till the commencement of trial before criminal court – Subsequent order of suspension was a nullity – More so, the issue could not have been re- agitated by virtue of the application of doctrine of res judicata – It is a clear case of legal malice. [Union of India Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, November 22, 2013]


Sale of Goods Act, 1930 – Ss. 19, 20 and 21 – Agricultural Produce Market Fee – Manufacture of castor oil out of castor seeds – Extraction of castor oil leading to production of de-oiled cake, a by-product containing less than 1% castor oil – De-oiled cake then sold in the market – Levy of market fee on de-oiled cake – Validity – Held, The by- product of de-oiled cake is different from the oil cake as it contains oil less than 1% and it is not included in the Schedule to the Act for the purpose of charging market fee – The item which is mentioned is oil cake which is different and distinct from the de-oiled cake – No market fee could thus be levied by appellant-APMC on de-oiled cake. [Agricultural Produce Market Committee Vs. Biotor Industries Ltd. & Anr., November 29, 2013]


Sentence / Sentencing – Death sentence – Rarest of rare cases – the facts and circumstances involved do not meet the requirement of rarest of rare cases and it is not a fit case where the death sentence awarded to the appellants should be affirmed – The ends of justice would meet if they are awarded the sentence of 30 years without remission. [Madhu @ Madhuranatha & Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka; November 28, 2013]


Sentence / Sentencing – Death sentence – When warranted – Held, The extreme penalty of death need not be inflicted except in gravest cases of extreme culpability – Life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an exception – The balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances has to be drawn up – The condition of providing special reasons for awarding death penalty is not to be construed linguistically but it is to satisfy the basic features of a reasoning supporting and making award of death penalty unquestionable – The circumstances and the manner of committing the crime should be such that it pricks the judicial conscience of the court to the extent that the only and inevitable conclusion should be awarding of death penalty. [Madhu @ Madhuranatha & Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka; November 28, 2013]


Service Law – Andhra Pradesh Judicial Ministerial Service Rules, 2003 – R. 8 Recruitment – Candidates shortlisted by fixing higher qualification – Held, a person who fulfils the eligibility conditions as per the recruitment rules cannot be excluded even from appearing in the qualifying written examination by fixing higher educational qualification bench mark. [Duddilla Srinivasa Sharma Vs. V. Chrysolite; November 21, 2013] AIR 2014 SC 558 : (2013) 16 SCC 702 : 2013 (12) SCR 421 : 2013 (14) Scale 192 : 2014 AIR (SCW) 136 : 2014 (2) JCR 45 : 2014 (1) ALT 30 : 2014 (140) FLR 544 : : 2014 (2) SCT 38 : 2014 LIC 1195 : 2014 (2) PLJR 36 : 2014 (1) JLJR 585 : 2014 (5) SLR 674 : 2014 All SCR 118 : 2014 (3) RSJ 493 : 2014 (2) Andh LD 83 : 2014(1) W.L.N. 46


Service Law – Effect of acquittal in criminal case on dismissal order after departmental inquiry – Held, There is no rule of automatic reinstatement on acquittal by a criminal court even though the charges levelled against the delinquent before the Enquiry Officer as well as the criminal court are the same. [State Of West Bengal & Ors Vs. Sankar Ghosh; November 28, 2013]


Service Law – Police Regulations of Calcutta, 1968 – Regulation 4 – Even if there is identity of charges levelled against the accused before the criminal court as well as before the Enquiry Officer, an order of discharge or acquittal of a police officer by a Criminal Court shall not be a bar to award of punishment in departmental proceedings. [State Of West Bengal & Ors Vs. Sankar Ghosh; November 28, 2013]


Service Law – Renewal of Suspension after suspension order quashed by Tribunal – Legality of – Criminal cases pending against delinquent officer – Officer placed under suspension – Departmental proceedings also initiated – Suspension reviewed from time to time – Tribunal quashing suspension orders with certain directions — Order not challenged – Further suspension orders passed irrespective the order of Tribunal – Quashed by Tribunal — Held, It was not permissible for appellants to pass any fresh order of suspension till the commencement of trial before criminal court. [Union of India Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, November 22, 2013]


Service Law – Suspension – Connotation and effect of – Explained. [Union of India Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, November 22, 2013]


Service Law – Suspension Order – Held, Should be passed only where there is a strong prima facie case against the delinquent, and if the charges stand proved, would ordinarily warrant imposition of major punishment i.e. removal or dismissal from service, or reduction in rank etc. [Union of India Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, November 22, 2013]


Service Law – Suspension Order – Judicial Review of – Held, Long period of suspension does not make the order of suspension invalid – Whether the employee should or should not continue in his office during the period of enquiry is a matter to be assessed by disciplinary authority concerned and ordinarily court should not interfere with orders of suspension unless they are passed in mala fide and without there being even a prima facie evidence on record connecting the employee with the misconduct in question. [Union of India Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, November 22, 2013]


Service Law – Suspension Order – Representation – Held, May be considered by competent authority if it is so provided under the statutory provisions and the court should not pass an order directing any authority to decide the representation for the reasons that many a times, unwarranted or time-barred claims are sought to be entertained before the authority. [Union of India Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, November 22, 2013]


Suit – Composite suit – Maintainability – Suit filed under Copyrights Act, 1957 and Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 – Territorial jurisdiction of the court challenged – Held, A composite suit would not be maintainable, unless the court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit in relation to the entire cause of action and the entire relief. [M/s Paragon Rubber Industries Vs. M/s Pragati Rubber Mills; November 29, 2013] (2014) 14 SCC 762 : 2013 (14) Scale 273 : JT 2013 (15) SC 330 : 2015 (1) SCC (Civil) 394 : 2014 (1) JCR 393 : 2014 (118) CorLA 8 : 2014 (133) AIC 96 : 2014 (1) RAJ 668 : 2014 (2) RCR (Civil) 767 : 2014 (1) RAJ 246 : 2014 (57) PTC 1 : 2014 (1) KLT 44 : 2014 All SCR 1339 : 2014 (3) Law Herald 2383 : 2014 (102) ALR 235 : 2014 (1) UAD 366 : 2014 (1) RJ 55 : 2014 (4) WBLR 589 : 2014 (3) Cal. H.C.N. 18 : 2014 (1) JBCJ 495 : 2014 (125) SCL 321 : 2014 (2) Law Herald (SC) 1727


Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 – Ss. 46 & 56 – Trademark Registration – Application for Rectification of the Registered Trade Mark – Dismissal on the ground of delay – Held, not justified – It prejudiced the rights of the appellant to have the case adjudicated on merits – Appellant was pursuing its remedy with due diligence, without brooking any delay – There was not even a slightest delay on his part in challenging the validity of the trade mark obtained by Respondent No. 1. [Lakha Ram Sharma Vs. Balar Marketing P. Ltd., November 27, 2013]


Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 – S. 46(1)(b) – Rectification of entry in respect of trademark – On the ground of non-user of the trademark – Limiting the use of trademark in six cities of the State of Uttar Pradesh – High Court permitted the use of trademark to the entire State of Uttar Pradesh – Held: Cogent reasons were given for extending the trademark to the whole of State of Uttar Pradesh – Hence order cannot be said to be perverse or arbitrary. [Satnam Overseas Vs. Sant Ram, November 22, 2013] AIR 2014 SC 521 : (2015) 1 SCC (Civil) 412 : (2014) 14 SCC 782 : 2013(14) Scale 342 : 2014 (1) JCR 331 : 2013 AIR (SCW) 6846 : 2014 (1) RAJ 371 : 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 750 : 2014 (133) AIC 11 : 2014 (1) RAJ 65 : 2014 (57) PTC 220 : 2014 (1) AIR Bom.R 434 : 2014(1) ALL MR 888 : 2014 (1) Rajdhani LR 536 : 2014 (102) ALR 219 : 2014 (1) RJ 590 : 2014(2) Cal. HCN 160 : 2014 (1) JBCJ 51


Wakf Act, 1995 (Haryana) – S. 7 r/w 85 – Interpretation of – Jurisdiction of the Tribunal (constituted under the Act) to determine disputes regarding wakfs – Wakf Board. [Haryana Wakf Board Vs. Mukesh Kumar, November 21, 2013] AIR 2014 SC 501 : 2013 (12) SCR 596 : (2014) 16 SCC 45 : : 2013(14) Scale 199 : 2015 (3) SCC (Civil) 426 : 2013 AIR (SCW) 6887 : 2015 DNJ 849 : 2013 (2) RentLR 668 : 2014 (1) ICC 678 : 2014 (1) LAR 381 : 2013 (6) RAJ 593 : 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 311 : 2014 (1) JCR 112 : 2014 (133) AIC 65 : 2014(1) Law Herald (SC) 399 : 2014 (122) RD 382 : 2014 (1) PLJ 282 : 2014 (1) WLN. 32 : 2014 (3) WBLR 211 : 2013 (2) UD 633 : 2014 (102) ALR 261 : 2014 (1) RJ 88 : 2014(2) Cal. H.C.N. 153 : 2014 (1) ACJ 168


Words and Phrases – `Occupation’ and `Profession’ – Distinction between – Discussed. [E. S. I. C Medical Officer’s Association Vs. E. S. I. C, November 21, 2013]


Comments