Latest Post

Cochin University of Science and Technology Act, 1986 — Section 31(10) and 31(11) — Selection and Appointment — Validity of Rank List and Communal Rotation — Harmonious Construction — Section 31(10) stipulates that the Rank List remains valid for two years, and vacancies arising during this period “shall be filled up from the list so published” — Section 31(11) mandates that “Communal rotation shall be followed category-wise” — These sub-sections operate in distinct spheres but are not mutually exclusive; the Rank List’s validity period (Sub-sec 10) co-exists with the mandatory application of communal rotation (Sub-sec 11) for every appointment made therefrom — Interpreting Sub-section (11) as becoming operative only after the Rank List expires would render the reservation/rotation requirement otiose during the list’s validity, defeating legislative intent and violating the doctrine of harmonious construction. (Paras 5, 5.2, 5.4, 5.5, 5.5.1, 5.5.2 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) —Section 302 read with Sections 149 and 148 — Murder —Conviction affirmed by High Court — Appeal to Supreme Court — Sufficiency of evidence — Role of interested/related witnesses — Deposition of PW-4 (mother of deceased and alleged eyewitness) scrutinized closely — Material contradictions found in PW-4’s evidence regarding the manner of assault and who informed her — Failure of prosecution to examine key witness (deceased’s granddaughter, who initially informed PW-4) — Independent witnesses (PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-9) turned hostile — Recovery of weapons based on accused’s memorandum/statement rendered unreliable when supporting witnesses hostile. (Paras 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15) Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 — Section 45A — Determination of contributions in certain cases — Preconditions for invoking Section 45A — Section 45A is a special provision for best-judgment assessment applicable only when an employer fails to submit, furnish, or maintain returns, particulars, registers, or records as required by Section 44, OR obstructs an Inspector or official in discharging duties under Section 45 — It is not an alternative mode of assessment available at the option of the Corporation — When records (ledgers, cash books, vouchers, etc.) are produced and the employer cooperates by attending multiple personal hearings, the mere allegation of inadequacy or deficiency of supporting documents does not satisfy the statutory threshold of “non-production” or “obstruction” to invoke Section 45A — Mere inadequacy of records does not confer jurisdiction under Section 45A. (Paras 14.6, 14.7, 24, 25, 27, 30) Tender and Contract — Eligibility Criteria — Interpretation of “prime contractor” and “in the same name and style” — Requirement of work experience — Where an NIT’s pre-qualification document requires “each prime contractor in the same name and style (tenderer)” to have completed previous work, and the term “prime contractor” is undefined, its meaning must be derived from common parlance as the tenderer primarily responsible for the contract offer; however, the requirement must be construed from the standpoint of a prudent businessman, considering the credentials and capacity to execute the work, not merely the name. (Paras 17, 20, 21.3) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 389 — Suspension of execution of sentence pending appeal and release on bail — Scope and distinction with bail — Appellate Court must record proper reasons for suspending sentence; it should not be passed as a matter of routine — The Appellate Court must not reappreciate evidence or attempt to find lacunae in the prosecution case at this stage — Once convicted, the presumption of innocence vanishes, and the High Court should be slow in granting bail pending appeal, especially for serious offenses like murder (Section 302, IPC). (Paras 6, 6.1, 6.2)

Cochin University of Science and Technology Act, 1986 — Section 31(10) and 31(11) — Selection and Appointment — Validity of Rank List and Communal Rotation — Harmonious Construction — Section 31(10) stipulates that the Rank List remains valid for two years, and vacancies arising during this period “shall be filled up from the list so published” — Section 31(11) mandates that “Communal rotation shall be followed category-wise” — These sub-sections operate in distinct spheres but are not mutually exclusive; the Rank List’s validity period (Sub-sec 10) co-exists with the mandatory application of communal rotation (Sub-sec 11) for every appointment made therefrom — Interpreting Sub-section (11) as becoming operative only after the Rank List expires would render the reservation/rotation requirement otiose during the list’s validity, defeating legislative intent and violating the doctrine of harmonious construction. (Paras 5, 5.2, 5.4, 5.5, 5.5.1, 5.5.2

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) —Section 302 read with Sections 149 and 148 — Murder —Conviction affirmed by High Court — Appeal to Supreme Court — Sufficiency of evidence — Role of interested/related witnesses — Deposition of PW-4 (mother of deceased and alleged eyewitness) scrutinized closely — Material contradictions found in PW-4’s evidence regarding the manner of assault and who informed her — Failure of prosecution to examine key witness (deceased’s granddaughter, who initially informed PW-4) — Independent witnesses (PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-9) turned hostile — Recovery of weapons based on accused’s memorandum/statement rendered unreliable when supporting witnesses hostile. (Paras 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15)

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 – Murder – Acquittal – Lack of proper test identification parade – Non-examination of key eyewitness who was present when the accused and deceased were last seen together – It becomes very doubtful as the accused was shown to the witness in the office of the Superintendent of Police, only with a view to see that he identifies the accused in the court – This procedure is not known to law – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MOHD. RIJWAN — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Writ Jurisdiction – Existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar on exercise of writ jurisdiction – One such compelling reason may arise where there is a serious dispute between the parties on a question of fact and materials/evidence(s) available on record are insufficient/inconclusive to enable the Court to come to a definite conclusion.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. EHSAN AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Manoj Misra, JJ. )…

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 243W – Exemption from service tax – Going by the golden rule of interpretation that words should be read in their ordinary, natural, and grammatical meaning, the word “or” in clause 2(s) clearly appears to us to have been used to reflect the ordinary and normal sense, that is to denote an alternative, giving a choice; and, this court cannot assign it a different meaning unless it leads to vagueness or makes clause 2(s) absolutely unworkable.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH COMMISSIONER, CUSTOMS CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, PATNA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M/S SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND COMPANY PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS — Respondent…

(SARFAESI) – Section 13(8) – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 60 – Redemption of mortgage – Failure on the part of the borrower in tendering the entire dues including the charges, interest, costs etc. before the publication of the auction notice as required by Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, would also sufficiently constitute extinguishment of right of redemption of mortgage

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CELIR LLP — Appellant Vs. BAFNA MOTORS (MUMBAI) PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI. and J.B.…

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 313 – Examination of an accused – – But where there has been a failure in putting those circumstances to the accused, the same would not ipso facto vitiate the trial unless it is shown that its non-compliance has prejudiced the accused – Where there is a delay in raising the plea, or the plea is raised for the first time in this Court, it could be assumed that no prejudice had been felt by the accused

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUNIL — Appellant Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI — Respondent ( Before : Hrishikesh Roy and Manoj Misra, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…

Service Matters

Acquittal in POCSO cases cannot be treated as a clean acquittal when prosecutrix and witnesses cited by the prosecution turned hostile, the trial Court passed an order, acquitting the respondent of the charges framed under Section 354(D) of the IPC and Section 11 (D)/12 of the POCSO Act – Appointment to post of police constable unsuitable.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. BHUPENDRA YADAV — Respondent ( Before : Hima Kohli and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. )…

Certified copy of sale deed – Admissibility – Certified copy given under Section 57 of the Registration Act shall be admissible for the purpose of proving the contents of its original document – Certified copy issued thereunder is not a copy of the original document, but is a copy of the registration entry which is itself a copy of the original and is a public document under Section 74(2) of the Evidence Act and Sub-section (5) thereof, makes it admissible in evidence for proving the contents of its original.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH APPAIYA — Appellant Vs. ANDIMUTHU@ THANGAPANDI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 14630…

Service Matters

Absorption as Assistant Teacher – Res judicata – claim for absorption as an assistant teacher in the Higher Secondary Section is clearly barred by constructive res judicata – Plea of res judicata applies, except in special cases, not only to points upon which the Court was actually required by the parties to form an opinion and pronounce a judgment, but to every point which properly belonged to the subject of litigation, and which the parties, exercising reasonable diligence, might have brought forward at the time.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SAMIR KUMAR MAJUMDER — Appellant Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. )…

You missed