Supreme Court of India Cases April 2016
1. Amal Kumar Jha Vs. State Of Chhatisgarh & Anr; 26 April 2016
Criminal P.C. 1973 – S. 197 – Sanction to Prosecution – Allegation against the appellant is of omission in discharge of official duty in not providing Government vehicle for shifting the patient from Primary Health Centre to District Hospital, Raigad; whereas he himself travelled in the vehicle in question for attending the monthly official meeting at the District Headquarters – it was an act or omission in discharge of the official duty – the sanction to prosecute was necessary.
In this case, the accused was acting in discharge of his official duty when he refused to provide the official vehicle. The refusal is directly and reasonably connected with his official duty, thus sanction is required for prosecution as provided under section 197(1) Cr.PC. It is not disputed that no ambulance was provided to the Primary Health Centre.
The question arises whether omission to provide the official jeep which was not meant for patients, would constitute an omission in discharge of his duty. Though public servant is not entitled to indulge in criminal activities in the course of his duty but the act in question had relation to discharge of official duty of the accused. It was clearly connected to the performance of his official duty. When such is the case, sanction is required.
2. Amanullah & Anr. Vs. State Of Bihar & Ors., 12 April 2016
Constitution of India, 195 – Article 136 – Competence of a private party as distinguished from the State, to invoke the jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution against a judgment of acquittal by the High Court.
3. Ashok Kumar Giri Vs. Govt. Of India And Ors; 27 April 2016
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunity, Protection of Rights and Full Protection) Act, 1995 – 3% reservation for differently abled persons will have to be computed on the basis of total vacancies of the cadre and not on the basis of the vacancies available in the identified post, namely, at the time of notification calling for applications to fill up the available vacant vacancies.
4. Axis Bank Vs. S B S Organics Pvt. Ltd & Anr., 22 April 2016
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 – Partial Deposit before DRAT is neither a secured asset, nor a secured debt – It is refundable to the appellant after disposal of Appeal.
5. Balram Yadav Vs. Fulmaniya Yadav, 27 April 2016
Family Courts Act, 1984 – Section 7 – Declaration to the effect that respondent is not his legally married wife – In case, there is a dispute on the matrimonial status of any person, a declaration in that regard has to be sought only before the Family Court. It makes no difference as to whether it is an affirmative relief or a negative relief. What is important is the declaration regarding the matrimonial status.
6. Centre For Public Interest Litigation Vs. U. O. I. & Ors., 08 April 2016
In the present writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the decision of the Government of India allowing voice telephony to Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. on payment of Rs.1,658 crores entry fee. Allegation of the petitioner is that the aforesaid amount at which the license for voice telephony is granted to respondent No. 2 is a pittance inasmuch as in normal course grant of this license would have fetched a whopping sum of Rs.25000 crores approximately.
7. Commissioner, Delhi Value Added Tax Vs. M/s Abb Ltd., 05 April 2016
Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 – Sections 3(a) and 5(2) – Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 – Exempt from taxation – Transactions constituting inter-State trade and those constituting sale or purchase in the course of import – Execution of the works contract between the respondent-assessee and the Delhi Metro Railway Corporation Ltd.
The movement of goods by way of imports or by way of inter-state trade in this case was in pursuance of the conditions and/or as an incident of the contract between the assessee and DMRC. The goods were of specific quality and description for being used in the works contract awarded on turn key basis to the assessee and there was no possibility of such goods being diverted by the assessee for any other purpose.
8. Common Cause Vs. Union Of India & Ors., 04 April 2016
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 – Section 4A(4) – Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 – Rule 28(1) – A mining lease under Section 4A(4) would not be deemed to have lapsed, till the State Government passes an order, declaring the mining lease to have lapsed, and further communicates the same to the leaseholder.
9. D. D. A. Vs. M/s. Anant Raj Agencies Pvt. Ltd., 12 April 2016
Delhi Development Act, 1957 – Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 – Section 7 – Renewal of Lease – The respondent has been unlawfully enjoying the public property which would amount to unlawful enrichment which is against the public interest.
10. Devinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State Of Punjab Through C B I, 25 April 2016
Punjab Disturbed Areas Act, 1983 – Section 6 – Whether in view of the provisions contained in section 6 of the 1983 Act the prosecution or other legal proceedings relating to Police officers can be instituted without prior sanction of the Central Government.
11. Essar Steel Ltd. Vs. Union Of India & Ors., 19 April 2016
Essential Commodities Act, 1955 – Regasified Liquefied Natural Gas (RLNG) – RLNG, being a petroleum product, is an essential commodity.
12. Harijan Bhala Teja Vs. State Of Gujarat, 27 April 2016
Penal Code, 1860 – S.302 – Murder – Charge as against the appellant stood proved beyond all reasonable doubts that he committed murder of his wife, and attempted to destroy the evidence by hurriedly getting buried the body
13. I T C Limited Gurgaon Vs. Commr. Of I. T (TDS) Delhi, 26 April 2016
Income Tax Act, 1961 – Ss. 192 & 201 – Salary – Consequences of failure to deduct or pay – ‘tips’ received by Hotel employees does not amount to ‘salary’ from their employer and hence the employer need not deduct the tax at source under S.192, though the same would be chargeable in the hands of the employees as “income from other sources”.
14. Kedar Mishra Vs. State Of Bihar & Ors., 12 April 2016
Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus land) Act, 1961 (Bihar Act No.12 of 1962) – Section 16 (3) – Restriction on future acquisition by transfer etc – The object of Section 16(3) of the Act is to secure consolidation by giving the right of re-conveyance to a co-sharer or a raiyat of an adjoining area so that the land in question can be used in the most advantageous manner and also to prevent fragmentation of the land.
15. Kusum Harilal Soni Vs. Chandrika Nandlal Mehta & Anr., 12 April 2016
Civil P.C. 1908 – Order 21 Rule 22 & Order 21 Rule 42 – Execution Application – Suit for Eviction – Recovery of amount of compensation- Attachment of the flat – in order to defeat the execution order for payment of compensation, an unregistered agreement has been entered between mother and the daughter – The mother and daughter had illegally attempted to get the attachment cancelled by setting up false documents in favour of respondent no. 2 on the basis of MOU and the unregistered agreement which had not seen the light of the day for several years – Thus, the High Court has erred in law in setting aside the attachment.
16. Lilawati Agarwal (dead) By Lrs. & Ors. Vs. State Of Jharkhand, 01 April 2016
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Whether correctness of the decision in K.S. Paripoornan (II) vs. State of Kerala and Others, (1995) 1 SCC 367 deserves to be considered by a Constitution Bench.
17. M. K. Indrajeet Sinhji Cotton P. Ltd. Vs. Narmada Cotto Coop. Spg. Mills Ld.& Ors., 26 April 2016
Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 – Section 167 – It is not the business of the Registrar to consider the merits and in particular the tenability of a pending suit and hold it to be untenable and thereupon refuse leave to continue the suit. The Civil Court is perfectly competent to decide whether the suit before it is tenable or not.
18. M/s Shinhan Apex Corporation Vs. M/s Euro Apex B. V Fakkir Mohamed, 22 April 2016
Arbitration – there was a Licence Agreement between the appellant and the respondent dated 22.2.1993 which provided for settlement of disputes by way of arbitration in accordance with Rules of the Dutch Arbitration Institute.
19. Medical Council Of India Vs. Christian Medical College Vellore & Ors; 11 April 2016
Review Petition – The judgment delivered in Christian Medical College Vellore & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2014) 2 SCC 305. needs reconsideration – the majority view has not taken into consideration some binding precedents and more particularly, there was no discussion among the members of the Bench before pronouncement of the judgment – Allowed these review petitions and recalled the judgment dated 18th July, 2013 and directed that the matters be heard afresh. The review petitions stand disposed of as allowed.
20. Medical Council Of India Vs. V. N. Public Health And Educational Trust & Ors; 18 April 2016
Medical College Regulations, 1999 – The Medical Council of India cannot be expected to approve an application submitted by an institution, for establishing new medical college, if the requisite ‘essentiality certificate’ submitted along with it, was defective – High Court should not have exercised its inherent powers where Medical College had not fulfilled the requirement of Essentiality Certificate.
21. Messer Holdings Ltd. Vs. Shyam Madanmohan Ruia & Ors., 19 April 2016
Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 – Section 30 – Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1997 – Chapter-III – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order 39 Rule 1&2 – Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 9.
22. Mohammad Sadique Vs. Darbara Singh Guru, 29 April 2016
Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Section 116A – Election Petition – Scheduled Caste Assembly Constituency in Punjab – Whether the respondent being muslim was not qualified to contest the election from 102-Bhadaur Assembly Constituency reserved for the members of the Scheduled Castes- Whether the respondent is a Sikh and professes Sikh religion.
23. Narayan Vs. Babasaheb & Ors., 05 April 2016
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 – Section 11 – When once a transaction takes place in the name of the minor which is in contravention of the 1956 Act and which is not done for legal necessity, such transaction is voidable and unless such a transaction is sought to be impeached or set aside, the question of recovery of possession of that property does not arise.
24. Pallav Sheth Vs. Canara Bank, 13 April 2016
Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 – Section 10 – Appeal – The appellant shall pay the decretal amount with interest calculated at the rate of 12% per annum (in place of 18% per annum) from 20th June, 1992 with adjustment of Rs.20,00,000/- already paid in 2003, in two installments payable in three months and six months time respectively. On such payment the sentence imposed upon the appellant shall stand reduced to the period already undergone along with fine of Rs.1,00,000/-.
25. Raj Kumar Vs. Dir.of Education & Ors., 13 April 2016
Delhi School Education Act, 1973 – S. 8(2) – Validity of – this provision is a procedural safeguard in favor of an employee to ensure that an order of termination or dismissal is not passed without the prior approval of the Director of Education in order to avoid arbitrary or unreasonable termination or dismissal of an employee of a recognized private school – the Delhi High Court’ decision of striking down the said provision in Kathuria Public School v. Director of Education, 113(2004) DLT 703 (DB) is erroneous.
26. Ramesh Rajagopal Vs. Devi Polymers Pvt. Ltd., 19 April 2016
Criminal P.C. 1973 – S. 482 – Penal Code, 1860 – Ss. 409, 468 & 471 r/w. 120(b) – Information Technology Act, 2000 – Ss. 65 & 66 – Quashing the Criminal Proceeding – Forgery – Forgery for purpose of cheating – In the absence of any act in pursuance of the website by which he has deceived any person fraudulently or dishonestly, induced any one to deliver any property to any person, it is not possible to attribute any intention of cheating which is a necessary ingredient for the offence under Section 468.
27. Rishabh Chand Jain & Anr Vs. Ginesh Chandra Jain, 13 April 2016
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Ss. 2 (2), 96 & 115 – Order XIV Rule 1 – “decree” – Appeal from original decree – Revision – Framing of issues – The order passed by the trial court is a composite order on rejection of the plaint as there is no cause of action and dismissal of the suit as not maintainable on the ground of Res Judicata. Both aspects are covered by the definition of decree under Section 2(2) of the Code and, therefore, the remedy is only appeal and not revision even if there is any irregularity in passing the order.
28. Sankalp Charitable Trust And Anr. Vs. Union Of India And Ors., 28 April 2016
Medical Council of India – Dental Council of India – Common Entrance Test – National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) – AIPMT 2016 to be held on 1st May, 2016 shall be phase I of NEET – Phase II of NEET for the left out candidates shall be held on 24th July, 2016 by inviting applications with fee – Combined result of both the Tests shall be declared on 17th August, 2016.
CBSE will provide All India Rank – Admitting Authorities will invite applications for Counselling and merit list shall be drawn based on All India Rank – All associated with conduct of Exam including Central Govt., State Govt., institutions, Police etc. will extend all necessary support to CBSE and permit security measures like use of electronic and communication devices Jammers etc. for timely and fair conduct of the NEET – Any difficulty with regard to implementation of orders of this Court the stake holders may approach this Hon’ble Court.
29. Sheikh Sintha Madhar @ Jaffer @ Sintha Vs. State Rep.by Inspector Of Police, 13 April 2016
Penal Code, 1860 – Ss. 148, 302, 201 & 120B – Murder – After the Coimbatore serial blasts, a conspiracy was hatched to do away with Dr. Sridhar (deceased), who was BJP Town Secretary at Trichy, and also actively involved in the propagation of the Hindu religion in the town. There were a total of 13 accused that hatched conspiracies in two separate groups to kill Dr. Sridhar and curb the growth of BJP in the city. In pursuance of the conspiracy, A1 to A7 formed an unlawful assembly on 2.2.1999 and attacked the deceased at about 10 p.m. when he was returning back from his clinic. A1 to A6 attacked the deceased with weapons in pursuance of the common object and caused his death.
30. Standard Chartered Bank Vs. State Of Maharashtra And Ors. Etc., 06 April 2016
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – Complaint against officials of company cannot be quashed merely on the ground that apart from the basic averment no particulars are given in the complaint about their role.
31. State Of Kerala & Ors. Vs. M/s Kerala Rare Earth & Minerals Limited & Ors., 08 April 2016
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 – Section 11(5) – Grant of mining leases for Ilmenite, Rutile, Leucoxene, Zircon and Sillimanite (non-scheduled mineral) for a period of 20 years – Whether the ownership in the mineral reserves is vested in the State Government – If it is, whether the Government has the right to decline leases on the ground that the minerals or the areas where the same are found have been reserved for exploitation by government companies or corporations.
32. T. Kocha Vs. State Of Kerala & Ors., 13 April 2016
Scheduled Caste – Thandan Community – the appellant was treated as Thandan and, thus, belonging to Scheduled caste community on the basis of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act 1976 and she was appointed as High School Assistant (Physical Science) in Government School on 03.02.1989 treating her as Scheduled Caste. Even if we proceed on the basis that she belongs to Ezhuvas/Thiyyas, that is irrelevant insofar as the appellant is contained as these castes were treated as part of Thandan Community and were held entitled to be treated as Scheduled Caste.
33. V. Sejappa Vs. State By Police Insp. Lokayukta, 12 April 2016
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) – Accused demanded a sum of Rs.5,000/- as illegal gratification for handing over ‘No Objection Certificate’ (NOC) to process pension papers and other retiral benefits- Acquitted.
34. Verhoeven, Marie – Emmanuelle Vs. Union Of India And Ors., 28 April 2016
Extradition Act, 1962 – Section 2(d) – Whether there is a binding extradition treaty between India and Chile – Held, there is a binding extradition treaty between India and Chile and that the provisions of the Extradition Act, 1962 (other than Chapter III thereof) are applicable to the Republic of Chile in respect of the offences specified in the Extradition Treaty.
35. Visvesvaraya Tech. University Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, 22 April 2016
Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 10(23C)(iiiab) – Incomes not included in total income – Entitlement of the University / Assessee to exemption from payment of tax.
36. Vls Finacne Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Commissioner F Income Tax & Anr., 28 April 2016
Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 158BC(c) – Notice under – Period of Limitation – Whether the period of limitation expired on 31st August, 2000 or the last date for completing block assessment was 30th June, 2000 – Whether the period between 24th August, 2000 to 15th December, 2006, when interim stay was in operation, required to be excluded for the purposes of counting limitation period.
Read full Text of the Judgments on www.lawkam.org