October 2021 - Page 2 of 11 - Supreme Court of India Judgements

May 10, 2024 4:16 pm

Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 – Sections 14, 15 and 16(1) – Cultivating tenants, right to first purchase the land leased to him – Surrender of tenancy – Notice – Requirement of notice for the prescribed period of three months, to the landlord, and the concerned revenue official is mandatory – This provision, in the form of a procedure enacted for the welfare and protection of a tenant (like the appellant) has to be construed in its literal and plain terms

Oct 31, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MUSUNURI SATYANARAYANA — Appellant Vs. DR. TIRUMALA INDIRA DEVI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ.…

Accident

Motor Accident – Permanent disability – Loss of Earning Capacity – – Courts should strive to provide a realistic recompense having regard to the realities of life, both in terms of assessment of the extent of disabilities and its impact including the income generating capacity of the claimant. In cases of similar nature, wherein the claimant is suffering severe cognitive dysfunction and restricted mobility, the Courts should be mindful of the fact that even though the physical disability is assessed at 69%, the functional disability is 100% in so far as claimant’s loss of earning capacity is concerned – Loss of earning capacity must be fixed at 100% – Compensation enhanced to Rs.27,67,800 – Appeal allowed.

Oct 31, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JITHENDRAN — Appellant Vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.…

Labour Cases

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 25F – Termination – Claim benefit under Section 25F- Nature of service rendered by the appellants as daily wager for a short period, while upholding the termination of the appellants being in violation of Section 25F of the Act 1947 – It just and reasonable to award a lumpsum monetary compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- to each of the appellants-workmen in full and final satisfaction of the dispute in lieu of right to claim reinstatement with 50% back wages as awarded by the Tribunal.

Oct 31, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH K.V. ANIL MITHRA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay…

Constitution

Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 – Section 3 – Grant of licence to set up a group housing colony – – Principle of First Come First Serve basis adopted in grant of licences is not a valid consideration, the only consequence available was to cancel such licence which have been granted based on the socalled alleged practice which is unsustainable in law and in our considered view no error was committed in passing the order of cancellation of grant of licence to the Appellants under the judgment impugned – Appeal dismissed.

Oct 31, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANANT RAJ LIMITED (FORMERLY M/S. ANANT RAJ INDUSTRIES LIMITED) — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi…

Specific Performance

Specific performance of Agreement – Not to grant the decree of specific performance despite the execution of the agreement to sell is proved; part sale consideration is proved and the plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract would encourage the dishonesty. In such a situation, the balance should tilt in favour of the plaintiff rather than in favour of the defendant – executant of the agreement to sell, while exercising the discretion judiciously. HELD Section 10(a) and now the specific performance is no longer a discretionary relief. As such the question whether the said provision would be applicable retrospectively or not and/or should be made applicable to all pending proceedings including appeals is kept open. However, at the same time, as observed hereinabove, the same can be a guide.

Oct 30, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUGHAR SINGH — Appellant Vs. HARI SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Aniruddha Bose, JJ. )…

Cr P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 452, 323, 325, 504, 506(2) and 114 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 482 – Criminal proceedings quashed – Appeal against – Observation made by the High Court that in view of bar under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and no sanction was obtained is concerned cannot be ground to quash criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure – On the ground of delay in lodging FIR/complaint, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed under Section 482 of the Cr P C

Oct 30, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHANTABEN BHURABHAI BHURIYA — Appellant Vs. ANAND ATHABHAI CHAUDHARI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Aniruddha Bose, JJ. ) Criminal…

Labour Cases

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 9A – Transferring the respective workman from Dewas to Chopanki, which is at about 900 Kms. away is in violation of Section 9A read with Fourth Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act and is arbitrary, mala fide and victimization – By such transfer, their status as “workman” would be changed to that of “supervisor” – By such a change after their transfer to Chopanki and after they work as supervisor they will be deprived of the beneficial provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and, therefore, the nature of service conditions/service would be changed.

Oct 30, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CAPARO ENGINEERING INDIA LIMITED — Appellant Vs. UMMED SINGH LODHI AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. )…

Constitution

Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 14 and 226 – Allotment of quarters – Ex-employees of Mills – Right to equality – No justification at all in treating 318 ex-employees different from those 134 ex-employees who were allotted 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost – As such the equals are treated unequally and therefore, when the equals are treated unequally, there is a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution and therefore, the appellants were entitled to the relief sought even in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Oct 30, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MODIFIED VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT SCHEME OF 2002 OF AZAM JAHI MILL WORKERS ASSOCIATION — Appellant Vs. NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent (…

Service

Military Engineering Service (Non-Industrial Class III and IV Posts) Rules, 1971 – Seniority – Determination of – In the matter of adjudging seniority of the candidates selected in one and the same selection, placement in the order of merit can be adopted as a principle for determination of seniority but where the selections are held separately by different recruiting authorities, the principle of initial date of appointment/continuous officiation may be the valid principle to be considered for adjudging inter se seniority of the officers in the absence of any rule or guidelines in determining seniority to the contrary.

Oct 30, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUDHIR KUMAR ATREY — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ. )…

Service

Service Law – Respondent is a club in strict sense and not public, ‘restaurant and eating place’ the conclusion appears to be inevitable that the respondent club cannot be characterized as premises which was ‘wholly or principally’ used for the business of supply of meals and refreshment to the public. In the first place as already noticed, the members of the Club and their guests and family members cannot be described as the ‘public’ . HELD There is no finding also that the club was providing lodging. In such circumstances, the question that should have been asked was, whether, being a club, which was not residential in nature, it stood exempted. This was not done. Appeal dismissed.

Oct 30, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH P.B. NAYAK AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR, BHILAI STEEL PLANT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : K.M Joseph and Pamidighantam Sri…

You missed

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 120-B read with Section 420 – Cheating – The case involves fraudulent transactions by accused in connivance with Indian Bank officials resulting in interest-free advances to the petitioners – The main issue is whether the petitioners were involved in cheating the bank and if they availed any undue benefit from the fraudulent transactions – The petitioners argued that they were not involved in the cheating, had not availed any undue benefit, and that the transactions were normal business dealings – The court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions, upholding the Trial Court’s conviction of the petitioners for cheating the bank through unauthorized transactions.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

Limitation

Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Condonation of Delay – Delay of 1663 days – The State of U.P. filed a SLP against an order dated 13.11.2009 by the Allahabad High Court, with a delay of 1,633 days – The main issue was the condonation of the significant delay in filing the SLP – The State argued that the delay was due to the time taken for obtaining legal opinion and permissions, and later, the realization that the appeal was not filed initially – The application for condonation of delay was dismissed, and consequently, the SLP was also dismissed – The court found the explanation for the delay unsatisfactory, especially since the State was aware of the High Court’s order when it was passed – The court did not find sufficient cause to condone the delay, leading to the dismissal of the SLP.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

Property Matters

Partition Suit – The dispute involves partition of properties left by Late ‘R’ with the main contention over roof rights of a property in Kota and another in Jaipur – The primary issue is the valuation of roof rights for further construction and the equal distribution of property among co-sharers – The appellants argue that the valuation report failed to assess the value of roof rights, which would affect the overall property valuation and entitlement of co-sharers – The respondents maintain that the property valuation and shares were appropriately determined by the approved Valuer and upheld by both the Trial Court and High Court – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in revaluating the property or altering the determined shares of the parties – The Court emphasized the importance of family ties over property disputes and suggested alternative dispute resolution methods for amicable settlements – The Court referenced the case of Afcons Infrastructure Limited vs. Cherian Varkey Construction Company Private Limited, advocating for ADR in family-related property disputes – The Supreme Court concluded that revisiting the valuation and partition would only prolong litigation and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

Constitution Municipal Laws

West Bengal Municipal(Building) Rules, 2007 – Rule 50 – Open spaces for building in areas other than municipalities in hill areas – The appellants challenge the High Court of Calcutta’s order regarding a contempt petition related to their residential property construction and its compliance with Rule 50 of Rules, 2007 – The appellants argue that the writ petition was a private matter and should not have been entertained by the High Court – They also claim that municipal authorities are unfairly pressuring them due to the contempt proceedings – The respondent claims that the appellants violated the sanctioned building plan, justifying the High Court’s direction for an enquiry – The Supreme Court allowed the appellants to challenge the enquiry report and show cause notice, ensuring their objections would be considered objectively without prejudice from the contempt or writ proceedings – The court expressed reservations about the High Court’s exercise of writ jurisdiction in a private dispute and suggested the civil court as the appropriate forum for grievances – The appeal was disposed of with the appellants given the liberty to challenge the enquiry report and show cause notice, without cost order.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

Month: October 2021

You missed