LawPage

Notes and Articles for Law students

User Tools

Site Tools


case_law:important_supreme_court_judgments_pronounced_today_december_friday_14_2018_212920122018

Important Supreme Court Judgments Pronounced Today [December, Friday 14, 2018]

Manohar Lal Sharma v. Narendra Damodardas Modi

Public Interest Litigation - Rafale Fighter Jets Case - Perception of individuals cannot be the basis of a fishing and roving enquiry by Supreme Court.

Judicial Review - Rafale Fighter Jets Case - Offsets - Processing of Offset Proposals - Indian Offset Partner - It is neither appropriate nor within the experience of the Court to step into the arena of what is technically feasible or not.

Judicial Review - Rafale Fighter Jets Case - Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of deciding to go in for purchase of 36 aircrafts in place of 126 - Court cannot possibly compel the Government to go in for purchase of 126 aircraft - It will not be correct for the Court to sit as an appellate authority to scrutinize each aspect of the process of acquisition.

Judicial Review - Rafale Fighter Jets Case - Pricing - It is certainly not the job of the Court to carry out a comparison of the pricing details.

Public Interest Litigations - Procurement of 36 Rafale Fighter Jets for the Indian Airforce - Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP) - Services Qualitative Requirements (SQRs) - Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) - Medium Multi Role Combat Aircrafts (MMRCA) - granted the “Acceptance of Necessity” - Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) - Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) - Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) - Decision Making Process - Pricing - Offsets - Processing of Offset Proposals - Indian Offset Partner.

Rafale Fighter Jets Case - Judicial Review - Parameters of judicial review of administrative decisions with regard to award of tenders and contracts - the extent of permissible judicial review in matters of contracts, procurement, etc. would vary with the subject matter of the contract and there cannot be any uniform standard or depth of judicial review which could be understood as an across the board principle to apply to all cases of award of work or procurement of goods/material.

Case Number : W.P. (Crl.) No. 225 of 2018 14-12-2018

Petitioner's Advocate : Petitioner-in-person

Bench : Hon'ble The Chief Justice, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. M. Joseph

Judgment By : Hon'ble The Chief Justice

Janhit Manch Through Its President Bhagvanji Raiyani v. State of Maharashtra

Area development & Zoning Regulations - Local problems must be attended to locally. The High Court is a Constitutional Court. The State Court is best equipped to look into local matters, especially where the area development and zoning regulations of the state or the city are in question. The problems and solutions may vary from state to state. It is really not for this Court to sit as an appellate court over these matters, unless some patent illegality is shown, or it is shown that there is any contravention of the constitutional mandate.

Population - Civic Amenities - Movement of population - Better Livelihood - Lack of opportunities for employment - Consequences of such mobility of population.

The expanding population of rural and urban areas has created its own problems, insofar as civic amenities are concerned. The problem is aggravated in metropolitan cities, where there is movement of population with the prospect of better livelihood. Lack of opportunities for employment has compelled people to leave their home and hearth.

Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - S.2(9A) - “development right” - A Transferable Development Right (TDR) is a voluntary, incentive-based programme allowing land owners to sell development rights from their land to a developer, or to other interested parties, who can then use these rights to increase the density of development at another designated location.

Case Number : C.A. No. 10192 of 2010 14-12-2018

Petitioner's Advocate : Appellant-in-person

Respondent's Advocate : E.C. Agrawala

Bench : Hon'ble The Chief Justice, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. M. Joseph

Judgment By : Hon'ble The Chief Justice

Jan Mohamad v. State of Haryana

Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 420, 409 & 120­B - accused was working as a driver in the the Haryana Roadways - embezzling 85 liters of diesel - accused is now in his late sixties and no longer in service - he was not involved in any other criminal activity during his entire service tenure except the case at hand which relates to the year 1999 - it just and proper and in the interest of justice to reduce the appellant's jail sentence to “what the appellant has undergone till date and enhance the fine amount from Rs. 15,000/­ to Rs. 25,000/­ ”.

Case Number : Crl.A. No. 1626 of 2018 14-12-2018

Petitioner's Advocate : Preeti Singh

Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indu Malhotra

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre

M/s Tata Motors Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand Department of Transport through the Transport Commissioner

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Ss. 2 (8), 39, 43 - Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 - R. 33 - Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1994 (Bihar) - Ss. 5, 6, 7, 23 - Motor Vehicle Rules, 1992 (Bihar) - R.4 - levy of tax - Tax payable by a manufacturer or a dealer - Payment of tax - definition of ‘dealer’ - Liability to pay penalty for non-payment of tax in time - Due date of payment and penalty for non-payment of taxes in time.

The tax was in respect of motor vehicles in possession of the manufacturer in the course of his business as a manufacturer, or in possession of the dealer in the course of his business as a dealer under the authorization of trade certificate granted under the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. The manufacturer comes in the possession of the motor vehicle after the vehicle is manufactured and is suitable for use on roads. The dealer in the course of his business of getting the Motor Vehicle from the manufacturer and selling it to a customer comes in the possession of the Motor Vehicle on the basis of a trade certificate granted under the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. Neither earlier nor now there is any obligations in a manufacturer to obtain a trade certificate under the 1989 Rules for carrying on the business of a manufacturer.

Case Number : C.A. No. 5299 - 5304 of 2003 14-12-2018

Petitioner's Advocate : Rajan Narain

Respondent's Advocate : Ratan Kumar Choudhuri

Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. K. Sikri, Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. K. Sikri

Jamila Begum (d) Thr. Lrs. v. Shami Mohd.

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 60 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 34 Rule 7 - Suit for Redemption of Mortgage - Court could not pass the decree for redemption without following the procedure for passing a preliminary decree and final decree.

Mohammedan Law - Gift - Oral Gift - Essentials of a valid and complete gift - Under the Mohammedan law, no doubt, making oral gift is permissible. The conditions for making valid oral gift under the Mohammedan law are:- (i) there should be wish or intention on the part of the donor to gift; (ii) acceptance by the donee; and (iii) taking possession of the subject matter of the gift by the donee.

Case Number : C.A. No. 1007 of 2013 14-12-2018

Petitioner's Advocate : Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary

Respondent's Advocate : Aparna Jha

Bench : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi, Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indira Banerjee

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi

Hukumchandra (d) thru Lrs. v. Nemi Chand Jain

Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (Madhya Pradesh) - Section 12(1)(f) - Restriction on eviction of tenants - Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the first appellate court and the High Court recorded concurrent findings of fact that the suit shop is required bona fide for the son of the landlord for the purpose of doing business and that the respondent – landlord has no other reasonably suitable non-residential accommodation for the business of his son. We do not find any good ground warranting interference with the impugned judgment and this appeal is bound to fail.

Case Number : C.A. No. 3827 of 2014 14-12-2018

Petitioner's Advocate : Pratibha Jain

Respondent's Advocate : Niraj Sharma

Bench : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi, Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indira Banerjee

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi

V. Ravi Kumar v. State rep. by Inspector of Police

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Second Complaint - Mentioning of reasons for withdrawal of an earlier complaint is also not a condition precedent for maintaining a second complaint.

The High Court clearly erred in law in dismissing the complaint, which certainly disclosed an offence prima facie. It was not for the High Court to enter the factual arena and adjudicate the merits of the allegations. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order of the High Court quashing the complaint is set aside. The first respondent shall proceed with further investigation in accordance with law.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Ss. 156 (3) & 482 - There is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code or any other statute which debars a complainant from making a second complaint on the same allegations, when the first complaint did not lead to conviction, acquittal or discharge.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - S. 482 - Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 420 & 409 r/w. 34 - Quashing the Criminal Proceedings - Whether the High Court should have quashed the criminal proceedings on the grounds that the appellant had withdrawn an earlier complaint without assigning reasons; the transactions being commercial in nature, the ingredients of an offence under the Sections referred to above were absent; and that the remedy of the appellant lay in filing a civil suit.

In this case, it cannot be said that there were no allegations which prima facie constitute ingredients of offences under Sections 420, 409 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code in complaint. There were clear allegations of fraud and cheating which prima facie constitute offences under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The correctness of the allegations can be adjudged only at the trial when evidence is adduced. At this stage, it was not for the High Court to enter into factual arena and decide whether the allegations were correct or whether the same were a counter-blast to any proceedings initiated by the respondents.

Criminal Law - a mere breach of contract is not in itself a criminal offence, and gives rise to the civil liability of damages.

In this case, in the FIR, there were allegations of fraudulent and dishonest intention including allegations of fabrication of documents, the correctness or otherwise whereof can be determined only during trial when evidence is adduced.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - S. 482 - Exercise of the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.

It is neither proper nor permissible for the Court to lay down any straitjacket formula for regulating the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. might be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of law, but only when, the allegations, even if true, would not constitute an offence and/or were frivolous and vexatious on their face. Where the accused seeks quashing of the FIR, invoking inherent jurisdiction of the High Court, it is wholly impermissible for the High Court to enter into the factual arena to adjudge the correctness of the allegations in the complaint.

This is not a case of breach of contract simplicitor but there are serious allegations of forgery of documents, use of blank letterhead, papers and cheque leaves of the appellant. In this case, it cannot be said that there were no allegations which prima facie constitute ingredients of offences under Sections 420, 409 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code in complaint. There were clear allegations of fraud and cheating which prima facie constitute offences under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The correctness of the allegations can be adjudged only at the trial when evidence is adduced. At this stage, it was not for the High Court to enter into factual arena and decide whether the allegations were correct or whether the same were a counter-blast to any proceedings initiated by the respondents.

Case Number : Crl.A. No. 111 of 2011 14-12-2018

Petitioner's Advocate : M. Vijaya Bhaskar

Respondent's Advocate : M. Yogesh Kanna

Bench : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi, Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indira Banerjee

Judgment By : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indira Banerjee

Vasant Ganpat Padave (d) by Lrs. v. Anant Mahadev Sawant (dead) thru Lrs.

Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (Maharashtra) - Sections 31A, 32G, 32F - termination of tenancy - Landlord’s right to terminate tenancy for personal cultivation and non agricultural purpose - Tenants deemed to have purchased land on tillers’ day - Right of tenant to purchase where landlord is minor, etc.

(i) For a landlord suffering from a disability on the Tillers Day i.e. 01.04.1957, the deemed purchase shall be suspended.

(ii) Landlord suffering from a disability has a right under Section 31(3) of the Act to give notice of termination of tenancy and file an application for possession.

(iii) Under Section 31(3), a minor, within one year from date on which he attains majoriy; a successor-in-title of a widow within one year from the date on which her interest in the land ceases to exist; and landlord within one year from the date on which his/her mental or physical disability ceases to exist can also give an application for termination of tenancy and possession.

(iv) Under Section 32F tenant has right to purchase where landlord was minor or a widow or a person subject to mental or physical disability within one year from the expiry of the period during which such landlord is entitled to terminate the tenancy under Section 31.

(v) The tenant, in event, does not exercise his right of purchase within the period as prescribed under Section 32F(1)(a), his/her right to purchase shall be lost.

Refer following questions for consideration of a larger Bench:

(1) Whether the object and purpose of amendment made in Section 32F(1)(a) by Act 49 of 1969 is also relevant and applicable for exercise of right to purchase by a tenant of landlord who was widow or suffering from mental and physical disability on Tillers Day ?

(2) Whether the successor-in-interest of a widow is also obliged to send an intimation to the tenant of cessation of interest of the widow to enable the tenant to exercise his right of purchase.

(3) In the event the answer to above question (1) or (2) is in affirmative, whether decision of this Court in Appa Narsappa Magdum, Sudam Ganpat Kutwal and Tukaram Maruti Chavan (supra) needs reconsideration and explanation.

Case Number : C.A. No. 11774 of 2018 14-12-2018

Petitioner's Advocate : Shubhangi Tuli

Respondent's Advocate : A. S. Bhasme

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan

Gangappa v. Fakkirappa

Stamp Act, 1957 (Karnataka) - Sections 33, 34, 37, 38, 39 - Examination and impounding of instruments - Instruments not duly stamped inadmissible in evidence - Instruments impounded how dealt with - Deputy Commissioner's power to refund penalty paid under sub­section (1) of section 37 - Deputy Commissioner's power to stamp instruments impounded - penalty imposed has to be 10 times.

The High Court has correctly interpreted the provisions of Section 33 in the impugned judgment but instead of prolonging the matter permitting the appellant to deposit 10 times of penalty and thereafter to take recourse under Section 38, we in the facts of the present case close the proceedings regarding penalty on the agreements to sell by approving the direction of the trial court for payment of entire deficit duty and double the penalty. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Case Number : C.A. No. 11932 of 2018 14-12-2018

Petitioner's Advocate : S-legal Associates

Respondent's Advocate : Irshad Ahmad

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan

Akhil Bhartvarshiya Marwari Agarwal Jatiya Kosh v. Brijlal Tibrewal

Deed of Conveyance - There is a difference and distinction between the built­up area of building and the plot area.

Case Number : C.A. No. 12088 of 2018 14-12-2018

Petitioner's Advocate : Jatin Zaveri

Bench : Hon'ble Dr. Justice D. Y. Chandrachud, Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. R. Shah

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. R. Shah


Navigation: Home»Case Laws