State of Jharkhand Vs. Surendra Kumar Srivastava & Ors.- Writ Petition under Article 227 challenging the orders passed by Civil Courts refusing to grant interim injunction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC could very well be maintainable.
Government of Haryana PWD Haryana (B&R) Branch Vs. M/s. G.F. Toll Road Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.- Appointment of Arbitrator -The objection of reasonable apprehension of bias raised was wholly unjustified and unsubstantiated, particularly since the nominee arbitrator was a former employee of the State over 10 years ago. This would not disqualify him from act as an arbitrator. Mere allegations of bias are not a ground for removal of an arbitrator.
Management of the Barara Cooperative Marketing cum Processing Society Ltd. Vs. Workman Pratap Singh– Industrial dispute– There lies a distinction between the expression ’employment’ and ‘regularization of the service”. The expression ’employment’ signifies a fresh employment to fill the vacancies whereas the expression ‘regularization of the service’ signifies that the employee, who is already in service, his services are regularized as per service regulations.
Manju Saxena Vs. Union of India & ANR.- Industrial Dispute- Once it is established that the Appellant had voluntarily abandoned her service, she could not have been in “continuous service” as defined under S. 2(oo) the I.D. Act, 1947. S. 25F of the I.D. Act, 1947 lays down the conditions that are required to be fulfilled by an employer, while terminating the services of an employee, who has been in “continuous service” of the employer.
Omveer Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & ANR.⇒ HC Judge ought to have first set out the brief facts of the case with a view to understand the factual matrix and then examined the challenge made to the proceedings in the light of the principles of law.
Kanubhai Bhagvanbhai Nayak Vs. State of Gujarat⇒ Procedure to decide criminal appeal-the powers of the Appellate Court under Section 386 (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Division Bench should have examined the evidence of each prosecution witnesses on issues arising in the case and the same should have been examined in the light of the challenge made by the accused in appeal and then a finding should have been recorded either of affirmation or modification or reversal, as the case may be.
Meera Mishra Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors. ⇒ DUTY OF HIGH COURT- Either to decide the controversy in merit or to remand it back with a direction for fresh consideration on merit.
Masroor Ahmad Khan Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. ⇒ Possession- It is a settled principle of law that in order to prove that the possession of any person in any immovable property is legal, it is necessary for such person to prove prima facie that he is either the owner of such property or is in possession as a lawful tenant or is in its permissive possession with the express consent of its true owner. Such is not the case here.
Roshina T. Vs. Abdul Azeez K.T. & Ors.⇒ Were pure questions of fact and could be answered one way or the other only by the Civil Court in a properly constituted civil suit and on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties but not in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by the High Court. It has been consistently held by this Court that a regular suit is the appropriate remedy for settlement of the disputes relating to property rights between the private persons. The remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution shall not be available except where violation of some statutory duty on the part of statutory authority is alleged.
Johra & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. ⇒The basic fundamental principle of law that no order can be passed by any Court in any judicial proceedings against any party to such proceedings without hearing and giving such party an opportunity of hearing. The principle of natural justice demands that the party to the proceedings must be heard by the Court before passing any order in relation to the subject matter of such proceedings.
Rakesh Malhotra Vs. Kamaljit Singh Sandhu & Ors. ⇒ Appellate Court cannot grant relief not sought originally- There was no specific prayer for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 20.4.1987. Despite the above, the first Appellate Court granted relief of specific performance of he agreement to sell dated 20.4.1987 for which there was no prayer in the plaint. Therefore, the High Court was justified in reversing the judgment and order passed by the first Appellate Court granting relief for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 20.4.1987
Swapan Kumar Jha @ Sapan Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand & ANR. ⇒ Death penalty Commuted to LI for non-availability of exceptionally heinous condition– “We find that a sentence of life imprisonment simpliciter would be inadequate for the appellant Swapan Kumar, as that includes the possibility of claiming remission after the expiry of as little as 14 years. we think that it would be in the interest of the justice to restrict the right of the appellant Swapan Kumar to claim remission in his sentence of life imprisonment for a period of 25 years. Such a minimum mandatory sentence would be commensurate with the gravity of the crime and with the heightened culpability of this appellant compared to the other accused”
Manoj Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another ⇒Cancellation of Bail-The High Court, unfortunately, passed the impugned order in a casual way granting bail to the accused-respondent No.2 without assigning any valid and proper reason. Taking note of that and upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it necessary and therefore cancel the bail granted by the High Court to the accused-respondent No.2.
Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association & ANR. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.⇒ Inherent power u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) is to be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. However, whenever it is found that the case is coming within the four corners of the aforesaid parameters, the powers possessed by the High Court under this provision are very wide.
Lourembam Deben Singh & Ors. v. AÂ Union of India & Ors. etc. ⇒ Purpose of a continuing mandamus is to ensure that the Investigating Officer or the Investigating Team (as the case may be) does not deviate from the natural course of investigations for whatever reason, either due to pressure or due to a misdirection or some other extraneous reason. This is the limited role of a Constitutional Court in monitoring investigations in a continuing mandamus.
Pratap Mehta Vs. Sunil Gupta & Ors ⇒ Supreme Court held that a writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals. It was further held that jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the High Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate court.
North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Sujatha ⇒ The question as to when does the payment of compensation under the Act “becomes due” and consequently what is the point of time from which interest on such amount is payable under Work`s Men Compensation Act.
The Management of Sri Ramnarayan Mills Ltd. Vs. Secretary, Coimbatore District Textile Workers Union (HMS) and Ors.⇒ Amendment of Standing Order- “break in service” cannot be allowed as a ground by way of punishment in Clause 16 of the Chapter of Punishment in Certified Standing Orders
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
State of Kerala Vs. Rasheed⇒ Practice guidelines have been issued for trial courts in the conduct of a criminal trial
Dr. Amit Kumar Vs. Dr. Sonila & Ors.⇒ Custody of the children “In our view, it clearly emerges that the decision to give custody to the appellant, of the two children, was a conscious decision taken by the parties at the relevant stage and can hardly be categorised as a decision under force, pressure or fraud”.
National Insurance Special Voluntary Retired / Retired Employees Association Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. ⇒ Voluntary retirement schemes
Raghubir Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan ⇒ Intra court appeal, the duty of Division Division Bench to decide on merit.
The Kelvin Jute Company Ltd. Workers Provident Fund Vs. Krishna Kumar Agarwala ⇒ Fraud played upon the court for getting a judgment, SC remanded back the case to HC with liberty to limitation.
Jitendra @ Kalla Vs. State of Government of NCT of Delhi–Murder-Life sentence for 30 years-If more than one life sentences are awarded to the prisoner, the same would get superimposed over each other. This will imply that in case the prisoner is granted the benefit of any remission or commutation qua one such sentence, the benefit of such remission would not ipso facto extend to the other.
Rama Avatar Soni Vs. Mahanta Laxmidhar Das ⇒ To challenge the genuineness of the Will inter alia indicates challenge to the genuineness of the signature
M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India –Manufacturers, cannot be permitted to sell any non BSVI compliant vehicle on or after 01.04.2020
Kamala Vs. M.R. Mohan Kumar ⇒ Unlike matrimonial proceedings where strict proof of marriage is essential, in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., such strict standard of proof is not necessary as it is summary in nature meant to prevent vagrancy
Kodungallur Film Society Vs. Union of India⇒ set out guidelines to assess damages to property by mob violence
Dr. S.K. Jhunjhunwala Vs. Mrs. Dhanwanti Kumar ⇒ Medical negligence
Gopal Jha Vs. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India ⇒ Allotment of a chamber in the vicinity of Supreme Court under Rule 3 of the Allotment Rules.
Kamal Nath Vs. Election Commission of India and Others⇒ SC dismissed the plea to issue directions for conducting VVPAT verification at least 10% randomly selected polling stations. Read More…
|SUPREME COURT CONSTITUTIONAL BENCH JUDGMENTS|
[ 2018 ]
Common Cause (A Regd. Society) Vs. Union of India and Another – Right to life: including right to live with human dignity” would mean the existence of such right up to the end of natural life, which also includes the right to a dignified life upto the point of death including a dignified procedure of death. [HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR, HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN]
Bir Singh Vs. Delhi Jal Board & Ors. – A person notified as a Scheduled Caste in State ‘A’ cannot claim the same status in another State on the basis that he is declared as a Scheduled Caste in State ‘A’……” [ HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA, HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER ]
Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. Vs. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice – SECTION 377of IPC-Homosexuality-It is declared that insofar as Section 377 criminalises consensual sexual acts of adults (i.e. persons above the age of 18 years who are competent to consent) in private, is violative of Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. [HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR, HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA]
Public Interest Foundation vs Union Of India – Corruption-A time has come that the Parliament must make a law to ensure that persons facing serious criminal cases do not enter into the political stream. [HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR, HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA]
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Another Vs. Union of India and Others– Certain provision of the Aadhaar Act has been declared unconstitutional.
Joseph Shine Vs. Union of India –September 27, 2018 – The apex court’s five-judge Constitution bench was unanimous in striking down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code dealing with the offence of adultery, holding it as manifestly arbitrary, archaic and violative of the rights to equality and equal opportunity to women.[HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR, HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA]
Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors. Vs. State of Kerala & Ors – In this PIL under Article 32 of the Constitution the petitioners have prayed for direction commanding the Government of Kerala, Dewaswom Board of Travancore, Chief Thanthri of Sabarimala Temple and the District Magistrate of Pathanamthitta and their officers to ensure entry of female devotees between the age group of 10 to 50 at the Lord Ayappa Temple at Sabarimala (Kerala) [HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR, HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA]