WEEKLY DIGEST – FEBRUARY 3-9, 2020
top of page
    • Feb 10, 2020
    • 6 min read

WEEKLY DIGEST – FEBRUARY 3-9, 2020

IT IS REQUIRED TO MAKE ALLEGATIONS OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY WHEN A COMPLAINANT INTENDS TO ROPE IN MD OR ANY OTHER OFFICER

SUSHIL SETHI AND ANOTHER V THE STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS.

The issue of this case was whether case made out to quash FIR and charge sheet u/s 420 read with s.120-B of IPC in exercise of the powers u/s 482 CrPC.

CORAM: Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice M.R.Shah.

Held that this is a fit case to exercise powers u/s 482 CrPC and to quash criminal proceedings for offences u/s 420 read with s.120-B IPC.

ONCE THE DEPUTATION AS A SOURCE OF RECRUITMENT IS AVAILABLE UNDER THE RULES OF RECRUITMENT, THERE IS NO IMPEDIMENT IN ASSUMING THE POWER OF BSORPTION OF A DEPUTATIONIST WITH THE AUTHORITY

SHRIPAL BHATI AND ANR. VS. STATE OF U.P. & ORS

CORAM: Justice Mohan M Shanthagoudar and Justice Krishna Murari

Various issues were raised in this case. After hearing the counsels to the case this court held that the appellants were not eligible for promotion to the post of Project Engineer for lack of experience.

WHEN THE FINAL VERDICT WAS NOT PRONOUNCED BY COURT MARTIAL CONFIRMED BY COMPETENT AUTHORITY-POWER TO PRECEDE U/S 20 READ WITH RULE 17 REMAINS TO BE EXERCISED

SANJAY MARUTHIRAO PATIL v. UNION OF INDIA

CORAM: Justice M.R.Shah and Justice L.Nageswara Rao

The verdict of the court is that the procedural requirements of s.20 of the Army Act read with rule 17 have been complied with. Thus the court dismissed the writ of the appellant.

WHEN THE CASE IS U/S 300 IPC, SECTION 304 HAVE NO ROLE TO PLAY

PAUL VS. STATE OF KERALA

CORAM: justice Sanjay kishan Kaul and Justice K.M. Joseph

Exception 4 of s.300 IPC was quoted.

“It must also be appreciated that under Section 106 of the Evidence Act facts within the exclusive knowledge  of the appellant as to what transpired within the  privacy of their bed room even must be established by the appellant.”

“If the case falls under any of the four limbs of Section 300, there would be no occasion to allow Section 304 to have play.  If the act which caused the death and which is culpable homicide is done with the intention of causing death, then it would be murder.  This is however subject to the act not being committed in circumstances attracting any of the 5 exceptions.”

The court held that there is no scope of applying s.300 IPC and the appeal stands dismissed.

CONDITIONS IMPOSED IN GRANTING ANTICIPATORY BAIL-VIEW OF SC

“…the life or duration of an anticipatory bail order does not end normally at the time and stage when the accused is summoned by the court, or when charges are framed, but can continue till the end of the trial. Again, if there are any special or peculiar features necessitating the court to limit the tenure of anticipatory bail, it is open for it to do so.”

“… it would not be in the larger interests of society if the court, by judicial interpretation, limits the exercise of that power: the danger of such an exercise would be that in fractions, little by little, the discretion, advisedly kept wide, would shrink to a very narrow and unrecognizably tiny portion, thus frustrating the objective behind the provision, which has stood the test of time, these 46 years.”

THE CROSS-OBJECTION WOULD BE TENABLE ONLY IF APPEAL IS VALIDLY TENABLE

URMILA DEVI AND ORS. VS. BRANCH MANAGER, INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANR.

CORAM: Justice S.A. Bobde, Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Surya Kant

Issue: Whether the cross-objection made by the claimants is maintainable when the insurance company has not filed an appeal challenging the quantum of compensation?

The Court has held that the right to prefer cross-objection partakes the right to prefer an appeal. It has been held, that when the impugned decree or order is partly in favour of one party and partly in favour of the other, one party may rest contented by his partial success with a view to giving a quietus to the litigation. It has been next held, that taking any cross-objection to the decree or order impugned is the exercise of right of appeal though such right is exercised in the form of taking cross-objection.  It has been held, that the substantive right is the right of appeal and the form of cross objection is a matter of procedure.

This court held that the cross-objections filed by the claimants is maintainable and judgment of HC is quashed and set aside.

ALL DECREE AND ORDERS OF COURT WHERE PROPTIES ARE OUTSIDE HE SUBJECT MATTER OF SUIT DO NOT REQUIRE REGISTRATION

MOHAMMADE YUSUF & ORS  v  RAJKUMAR & ORS

CORAM: Justice ASHOK BHUSHAN and Justice M.R. SHAH.

The issue before this court is whether the compromise decree was required to be registered under section 17 of the Registration Act?

This court set aside the order of Civil Judge and HC. The compromise decree is allowed.

CONCLUSION OTHER THAN CONCLUSION OF GUILT OF ACCUSED WILL VITIATE A CONVICTION

BASHEERA BEGAM  V  MOHAMMED IBRAHIM & ORS

CORAM: Justice R. BANUMATHI and Justice INDIRA BANERJEE

This court held that the order of HC in setting aside the judgment of Trial Court was right. Accused was acquitted and the appeal is dismissed.

REQUEST FOR CHANGE OF DATE OF BIRTH IN SERVICE RECORDS IS NOT SUSTAINED WHEN JUDICIAL REMEDY IS NOT AVAILED

BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. & ORS. VS. SHYAM KISHORE SINGH

CORAM: Justice R. Banumathi and Justice A.S. Bopanna

The held that the date of joining the service is correct, but the respondents rely upon the date of birth in the matriculation certificate and the same has not been submitted while joining the course of employment. Thus this court set aside the order of HC and allowed the appeal.

WHEN A PERSON IS NOT ACQUIRING ANY FIRHER RIGHT IN THE LAND TO BE INCLUDED IN THE WILD LIF SCANTUARY THEN HE HAS NO RIGHT TO CLAIM DAMAGES FROM THE STATE

M/S NATESAN AGENCIES (PLANTATIONS) VS. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST DEPARTMENT

Suit was filed for not allowing the use of land in question.

The court cannot find errors in the impugned judgment and petition dismissed.

BENEFICIARIES UNDER INSURANCE WILL COME UNDER THE DEFITION OF CONSUMER

CANARA BANK  v  M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS.

CORAM: Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice Deepak Gupta

Contentions of insurance company were baseless. The beneficiaries are entitled to get amount payable under the policy. Thus the appeal stands dismissed.

IN CASE THE JUST COMPENSATION IS MORE THAN THE AMOUNT CLAIMED, MUST BE ALLOWED WHERE THE CLAIMNANT IS MINOR

KAJAL V JAGDISH CHAND AND ORS.

CORAM: Justice. L. Nageswara Rao and Deepak Gupta

The court is of view that “the amount awarded by us is more than the amount claimed” and in Motor Accident claim petitions, the court must award Just compensation, and in case, the Just compensation awarded is more than the amount claimed, that must be awarded especially where the claimant is a minor.

The appeal was disposed.

NATURAL CHILDREN OF ADOPTEE BORN AFTER HIS ADOPTION HAVE RIGHTS TO INHERIT HIS PROPETY IN ADOPTIVE FAMILY

KALINDI DAMODAR GARDE (D) BY LRS V MANOHAR LAXMAN GULKARNI AND ORS

CORAM: Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta

The court has concluded by taking the reference in the judgment of Bombay High Court in Martand Jiwajee Patil, that the natural father retains the right to give in adoption his son born before his own adoption. Therefore, if he has a right to give his son in adoption, such son has a right to inherit property by virtue of being an agnate. There was a full blood relationship between the three sons and the daughter who was born after adoption.

Thus the court dismissed the appeal.

FINDINGS OF FACT CANNOT BE INTERFFERED BY COURT IN SLP U/A 136 OF CONSTITUTION, UNLESS FINDINGS SHOCK CONSCIENCE

MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI AND ORS.

CORAM:  Justice N.V.Ramana , Vineet Saran, V. Ramasubramanian

The Court held that these findings of fact cannot be interfered with by this Court in a special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, unless the findings shock the Court’s conscience.

Court noted that the findings of HC were not perverse and its judgment cannot be interfered.

DEDUCTION U/S 43B IS ALLOWED ONLY WHEN THE AMOUNT OF TAX,CESS ETC ARE DUE AND PAYABLE

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. (EARLIER KNOWN AS MARUTI UDYOG LTD.)  V  COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

CORAM: Justice ASHOK BHUSHAN and Justice NAVIN SINHA

 “The proviso to Section 43B provides that nothing contained in the Section shall apply in relation to any sum which is actually paid by assessee on or before due date applicable in his case for furnishing the return in respect of the previous year in which the liability to pay such sum was incurred.”

This court held that the view of HC was right and this appeal is dismissed.

THE CRATION OF POST DEOES NOT LIE WITHIN THE DOMAIN OF JUDICIAL FUNCTION “WHICH OBVIOUSLY PERTAINS TO THE EXECUTIVE”

OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION VS. KRISHNAN GOPAL AND ORS.

CORAM: Justice Dr. Dhanajaya Y Chandrachaud and Justice Ajay Rastogi

The Court concluded that the powers of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court cannot extend to a direction to order regularization is such a direction would offend the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution.

This court placed this appeal before the CJI.

Articles

bottom of page