Month: September 2021

Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 – Section 3(2) – Possession – HELD land was lying vacant with a compound wall and that therefore, the claim of the land owner to be in possession must be correct. There can hardly be any such presumption – Existence of the compound wall enclosing even the land that had already been sold by the land owner to the Trust, is admitted by the land owner herself in her letter – High Court committed a grave error in granting the benefit of Section 3(2) of the Repeal Act to the respondents. Cases Referred

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH  STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M.S. VISWANATHAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ.…

Service Matters

Reinstatement with full back wages is not automatic in every case, where termination / dismissal is found to be not in accordance with procedure prescribed under law – It is a fit case for modification of the relief granted by the High Court – It appropriate that ends of justice would be met by awarding lump sum monetary compensation and direct payment of lump sum compensation of Rs.15 lakhs to the respondent – Appeal partly allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ALLAHABAD BANK AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. KRISHAN PAL SINGH — Respondent ( Before : R. Subhash Reddy and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ. ) Civil…

Arbitration Act, 1940 – Section 28 – Arbitration proceedings – Extension of time for making the award – Once the Sole Arbitrator continued with the arbitration proceedings and passed the award within the extended period of time, it cannot be said that he has misconducted himself as he continued with the arbitration proceedings.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH  M/S LAXMI CONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION CO. — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna, JJ.…

Land Acquisition – Determination of market value – When the different items of property in the different survey number were acquired for the same purpose of establishing the market yard and as observed by the High Court since all the lands had the road passing beside it, a common determination of the market value was the appropriate course – Observation of High Court is justified – Appeal dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH  MANMOHAN LAL GUPTA (DEAD) THRU LRS. — Appellant Vs. MARKET COMMITTEE BHIKHI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna,…

(CrPC) – S 357 – (IPC) – S 326 – Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons – Assault with the sword and chopping of right leg and right forearm below the elbow and the brutality is apparent on the face of record – Compromise HELD the leg and arm of the victim are amputated in the alleged incident dated 13th December, 1993 and since then he has been fighting for life and is pursuing his daily chores with a prosthetic arm and leg and has lost his vital organs of his body and became permanently disabled and such act of the appellant is unpardonable – This Court not inclined to give any benefit of the alleged compromise for interfering in the sentence awarded by the High Court in the impugned judgment which at least does not call for interference of this Court.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH  BHAGWAN NARAYAN GAIKWAD — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ.…

Judicial Review – Tender jurisdiction – Purpose is to check whether the choice of decision is made lawfully and not to check whether the choice of decision is sound. In evaluating tenders and awarding contracts, the parties are to be governed by principles of commercial prudence – To that extent, principles of equity and natural justice have to stay at a distance.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH  UFLEX LIMITED — Appellant Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. )…

The subject-matter of the aforementioned Appeals is the judgement of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 07.11.2013 as well as a subsequent decision of the Delhi High Court dated 08.09.2014, which ruled on the issue of interest under Section 234B in favour of the Revenue, relying on the Division Bench judgement dated 07.11.2013. The point that arises for consideration in these Appeals is covered by our judgement in Civil Appeal No. 1262 of 2016.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH  DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI — Appellant Vs. M/S. MITSUBISHI CORPORATION — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose, JJ.…

Service Matters

Service Law – Where the employer feels that an employee who at the initial stage itself has made a false statement and/or not disclosed the material facts and/or suppressed the material facts and therefore he cannot be continued in service because such an employee cannot be relied upon even in future, the employer cannot be forced to continue such an employee. The choice/option whether to continue or not to continue such an employee always must be given to the employer.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. ANIL KANWARIYA — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna, JJ.…

(IPC) – Sections 107 and 306 – ‘Abetment’ involves mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, no one can be convicted for offence under Section 306, IPC. To proceed against any person for the offence under Section 306 IPC it requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide, seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide. There is nothing on record to show that appellant was maintaining relation with the deceased and further there is absolutely no material to allege that appellant abetted for suicide of the deceased within the meaning of Section 306, IPC

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH  KANCHAN SHARMA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. )…

(IPC) – Sections 299, 302 and 304 – Murder – Appeal against conviction and sentence -it is held that the accused conviction under Section 302 IPC was not appropriate – Section 304 IPC  Code provides punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder (under Section 299 IPC). In the facts of the present case, this court is of the opinion that the accused should be convicted for the offence punishable under the first part of Section 304 IPC, as he had the intention of causing such bodily harm, to the deceased, as was likely to result in his death, as it did.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MOHD. RAFIQ @ KALLU — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ.…

You missed