Kundula Bala Subrahmanyam and another Versus State of Andhra Pradesh [ ALL SC 1993 MARCH ]

KEYWORDS: Dying declaration- AIR 1993 SCW 1321 : (1993) CriLJ SC 1635 : JT 1993 (2) SC 559 : (1993) 2 SCALE 214 : (1993) 2 SCC 684 : (1993) 2 SCR 666 (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Kundula Bala Subrahmanyam and another Appellant Versus State of ANDHRA PRADESH Respondent (Before : Dr. A. S. Anand… Read More Kundula Bala Subrahmanyam and another Versus State of Andhra Pradesh [ ALL SC 1993 MARCH ]

Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and another Vs Union of India[ALL SC 1993 OCTOBER]

KEYWORDS:-ROLE OF CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA- DATE:-06-10-1993. AIR 1994 SC 268 : (1993) 2 Suppl. SCR 659 : (1993) 4 SCC 441 : JT 1993 (5) SC 479 : (1993) Suppl. SCALE 67 (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and another Appellant Versus Union of India Respondent AND S. P. Gupta Appellant Versus… Read More Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and another Vs Union of India[ALL SC 1993 OCTOBER]

Code of Regulations for Anglo-Indian and other listed Schools 1993 – Govt of WB

Anglo-Indian school” means an institution, including all standards. and divisions thereof, established under the Code of Regulations for European (now Anglo-Indian) Schools in Bengal (now West Bengal), 1929 (hereinafter referred to in this Code as the existing Code) and continuing as such on the dale of coming into force of this Code, provided that such institution continues to fulfill the conditions for recognition laid down in this Code, and particularly in regulation 8.… Read More Code of Regulations for Anglo-Indian and other listed Schools 1993 – Govt of WB

V. KISHAN RAO Vs. NIKHIL SUPER SPECIALITY HOSPITAL AND ANOTHER [ALL SC 2010 MARCH]

We are of the view that aforesaid directions are not consistent with the law laid down by the larger Bench in Mathew (supra). In Mathew (supra), the direction for consulting the opinion of another doctor before proceeding with criminal investigation was confined only in cases of criminal complaint and not in respect of cases before the Consumer Forum. The reason why the larger Bench in Mathew (supra) did not equate the two is obvious in view of the jurisprudential and conceptual difference between cases of negligence in civil and criminal matter. This has been elaborately discussed in Mathew (supra). This distinction has been accepted in the judgment of this Court in Malay Kumar Ganguly (supra) (See paras 133 and 180 at pages 274 and 284 of the report).… Read More V. KISHAN RAO Vs. NIKHIL SUPER SPECIALITY HOSPITAL AND ANOTHER [ALL SC 2010 MARCH]

A decree obtained by fraud cannot be used as a res judicata and the same can be challenged by a separate Suit-SC

The judiciary in India also possesses inherent power, specially u/s 151 CPC, to recall its judgment or order if it is obtained by fraud” on Court, In the case of fraud on a party to the suit or proceedings, the Court may direct the affected party to file a separate suit for setting aside the decree obtained by fraud. Inherent powers are powers, which are resident in all Courts, especially of superior jurisdiction. These powers spring not from legislation but from the nature and the constitution of the tribunals or Courts themselves so as to enable them to maintain their dignity, secure obedience to its process and rules, protect its officers from indignity and wrong and to punish unseemly behavior. This power is necessary for the orderly administration of the Court’s business.… Read More A decree obtained by fraud cannot be used as a res judicata and the same can be challenged by a separate Suit-SC

Narayana Gramani & Ors. Vs. Mariammal & Ors [ALL SC 2018 SEPTEMBER]

September 11, 2018-TITLE APPEAL-Keeping in view the scope and ambit of the powers of the High Court while deciding the second appeal when we advert to the facts of the case, we find that the High Court committed an error in allowing the defendants’ second appeal and further erred in dismissing the plaintiffs’ suit by answering the substantial question of law. This we say for more than one reason.

First, mere perusal of the impugned order would go to show that the High Court had admitted the second appeal by framing only one substantial question of law, namely, whether the first Appellate Court was justified in dismissing the defendants’ first appeal by taking into consideration one earlier litigation in relation to the suit land, which was not between the same parties.  The High Court held that the first Appellate Court was not justified because the earlier litigation was not between the present plaintiffs and the defendants but it was between the different parties and, therefore, any decision rendered in such litigation would not operate as res judicata in the present litigation between the parties. This resulted in allowing of the appeal and dismissing the suit.

Second, the High Court committed another error when it failed to frame any substantial question of law on the issue of the plaintiffs’ ownership over the suit land. So long as no substantial question of law was framed, the High Court had no jurisdiction to examine the said issue in its second appellate jurisdiction. In other words, the High Court having framed only one question, which did not pertain to issue of ownership of the suit land, had no jurisdiction to examine the issue of ownership. It was not permissible in the light of Section 100 (5) of the Code, which empowers the High Court to decide the appeal only on the question framed and not beyond it.

Third, the High Court could invoke its powers under proviso to subsection (5) of Section 100 and frame one or two additional questions, as the case may be, even at the time of hearing of the second appeal. It would have enabled the High Court to examine the issue of ownership of the suit land in its correct perspective. It was, however, not done by the High Court.

Fourth, the High Court, while examining the question framed, also cursorily touched the ownership issue which, in our opinion, the High Court could not have done for want of framing of any substantial question of law on the ownership issue. That apart, the High Court also failed to see that the issue of res judicata and the issue of ownership were independent issues and the decision on one would not have 14 answered the other one. In other words, both the issues had to be examined independent of each other on their respective merits. It was, however, possible only after framing of substantial questions on both the issues as provided under Section 100(4) and (5) of the Code. This was, however, not done in this case.… Read More Narayana Gramani & Ors. Vs. Mariammal & Ors [ALL SC 2018 SEPTEMBER]

Gottumukkala Venkata Krishamraju Vs. Union of India & Ors. [ALL SC 2018 SEPTEMBER]

SEPTEMBER 07, 2018 : Ordinarily wherever the word ‘substitute’ or ‘substitution’ is used by the legislature, it has the effect of deleting the old provision and make the new provision operative. The process of substitution consists of two steps: first, the old rule is made to cease to exist and, next, the new rule is brought into existence in its place. The rule is that when a subsequent Act amends an earlier one in such a way as to incorporate itself, or a part of itself, into the earlier, then the earlier Act must thereafter be read and construed as if the altered words had been written into the earlier Act with pen and ink and the old words scored out so that thereafter there is no need to refer to the amending Act at all. No doubt, in certain situations, the Court having regard to the purport and object sought to be achieved by the Legislature may construe the word “substitution” as an “amendment” having a prospective effect.… Read More Gottumukkala Venkata Krishamraju Vs. Union of India & Ors. [ALL SC 2018 SEPTEMBER]

STATE (THROUGH) CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Vs. SHRI KALYAN SINGH (FORMER CM OF UP)[ALL SC 2017 APRIL]

A number of judgments have been cited including the celebrated Supreme Court judgment in Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India & Another, 1998 (4) SCC 409, in which a Constitution Bench of this Court held that Article 142 cannot authorize the Court to ignore the substantive rights of a litigant while dealing with the cause pending before it and cannot be used to supplant the substantive law applicable to the cause before this Court. A large number of other judgments following this judgment were also cited. … Read More STATE (THROUGH) CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Vs. SHRI KALYAN SINGH (FORMER CM OF UP)[ALL SC 2017 APRIL]

BALAJI RAGHAVAN AND S.P. ANAND  Vs. UNION OF INDIA [ ALL SC 1995 DECEMBER]

Bharat Ratna and Padma awards are not “titles” within Article 18 of the Constitution of India. These awards can be given to the citizens for exceptional and distinguished services rendered in art, literature, science and other fields. These awards are national in character and only those who have achieved distinction at national level can be considered for these awards. The question to be considered, however, is whether the purpose of instituting these awards is being achieved and these are being conferred on the deserving persons. The history and experience shows that, in the beginning, these awards were given to a limited number of persons but in the recent years there have been floodgates of awards for the persons who are well known, lesser known and even unknown. The Padma awards have been conferred on businessmen and industrialists who have multiplied their own wealth and have hardly helped the growth of national interest. Persons with little or no contribution in any field can be seen masquerading as Padma awardees. The existing procedure for selection of candidates is wholly vague and is open to abuse at the whims and fancies of the persons in authority. Conferment of Padma awards without any firm guidelines and fool-proof method of selection is bound to breed nepotism, favoritism, patronage and even corruption.… Read More BALAJI RAGHAVAN AND S.P. ANAND  Vs. UNION OF INDIA [ ALL SC 1995 DECEMBER]

Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. Vs. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice [ALL SC 2018 September]

September 6, 2018:-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. It is, however, clarified that such consent must be free consent,… Read More Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. Vs. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice [ALL SC 2018 September]

Maj. Amod Kumar Vs. Union of India & ANR. [ALL SC 2018 SEPTEMBER]

September 6, 2018-Writ Petitions under Article 32-Army Service Corps-The Officers belonging to the ASC, Army Ordinance Corps, and Electronic and Mechanical Engineers, i.e. the services stream, do not constitute a common cadre with those serving in the Arms, and Arms Support for the purposes of promotion.4 As a result, they were not entitled to be considered for promotion to the rank of Colonel against the vacancies created in pursuance of the implementation of the AVS Committee Report.

The Petitioners have contended that the Posting Orders passed by the Respondents posting them to operational areas/units is violative of their Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The Petitioners have, however, failed to substantiate how their Fundamental Rights have been violated. Postings and transfers are a necessary incident of service. Hence, the grievance, if any, cannot be entertained under Article 32.… Read More Maj. Amod Kumar Vs. Union of India & ANR. [ALL SC 2018 SEPTEMBER]

Yashwant Etc. Vs. State of Maharashtra[ ALL SC 2018 SEPTEMBER]

September 04′ 2018: Custodial torture cases-As the police, in this case, are the violators of law’ who had the primary responsibility to protect and uphold law’ thereby mandating the punishment for such violation to be proportionately stringent so as to have effective deterrent effect and instill confidence in the society. It may not be out of context to remind that the motto of Maharashtra State Police is “Sadrakshnāya Khalanīghrahanāya” (Sanskrit: “To protect good and to Punish evil”)’ which needs to be respected. Those’ who are called upon to administer the criminal law’ must bear’ in mind’ that they have a duty not merely to the individual accused before them’ but also to the State and to the community at large. Such incidents involving police usually tend to deplete the confidence in our criminal justice system much more than those incidents involving private individuals-APPELLANT CONVICTED… Read More Yashwant Etc. Vs. State of Maharashtra[ ALL SC 2018 SEPTEMBER]

Suresh Kumar Koushal & Anr vs Naz Foundation & Ors [ALL SC 2013 DECEMBER]

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.10972 OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.15436 of 2009) Suresh Kumar Koushal & Anr vs Naz Foundation & Ors Decided on: 11 December 2013 Bench: G.S. Singhvi, Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya JUDGMENT G.S. SINGHVI, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. These appeals are directed against order… Read More Suresh Kumar Koushal & Anr vs Naz Foundation & Ors [ALL SC 2013 DECEMBER]