Latest laws Helping good people to do good things.

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Supreme Court holds the Chairpersons of Reliance Communications Ltd., Reliance Telecom Ltd., and Reliance Infratel Ltd. have breached the undertaking given to the Apex Court and the related orders. The Bench orders the R.Com. Chairman and others to purge the contempt by paying ? 453 crore to Ericsson in four weeks. The bench states if the contemnors fail to make the payments within the specified period, they will undergo a jail term of three months. Court also directs Reliance Communication, Reliance Telecommunication and Reliance Infratel to deposit ?1 crore each to the Apex Court’s registry in four weeks or the Chairman of these companies will have to go an additional jail term of one month. Court clarifies that ?118 crore which has already been deposited by Reliance Group in the Apex Court’s registry, be disbursed to Ericsson within a week. Contempt Petitions are disposed off.

RF Nariman, Vineet Saran, JJ

20/2/2019 View judgement PDF

TAMIL NADU POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD Vs STERLITE INDUSTRIES (I) LTD. & ORS

Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. Supreme Court holds that the State Government passing an order under Section 18 of the Water Act, not being the subject matter of any appeal under Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, cannot be “judicially reviewed” by the NGT. The National Green Tribunal has no general power of judicial review akin to that vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India possessed by the High Courts of this country. The Supreme Court clarifies that no appeal was provided against orders made under Section 18 of the Water Act, and the attempt to bring the Tribunal by the backdoor, as it is done in the present case will, therefore, have to be rejected. Appeals disposed off.

R.F. Nariman, Navin Sinha, JJ

18/2/2019 View judgement PDF

KRIPAL SINGH Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Indian Penal Code, Section 302 IPC. SC holds, prosecution has proved the case against the present accused/appellant beyond reasonable doubt that the injury on the head of the deceased which was attributed to the accused appellant could in itself be sufficient to cause death and this is what has been considered by the learned trial Court and confirmed by the High Court in appeal. The possibility of over-implication of co-accused Ram Lal, Arjun Singh and Sultan Singh would not in any manner rule out the case of the present appellant and the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt holding him guilty. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to how much evidence should be appreciated but what is required is that judicial approach has to be cautious in dealing with such evidence; but the plea that such evidence should be rejected because it is partisan cannot be accepted as correct. Appeal is dismissed.

A.M. Khanwilkar, Ajay Rastogi, JJ

15/2/2019 View judgement PDF

EZAJHUSSAIN SABDARHUSSAIN & ANR. Vs STATE OF GUJARAT

Indian Penal Code, Section 302. SC observed, there cannot be a universal rule in laying down the principles of existence of common intention of prior meeting or meetings with pre-arranged plan. It has to be proved either from the conduct or circumstances of any incriminating facts which is missing in the instant case. The High Court has committed a manifest error in holding the appellants guilty under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for participating in the commission of crime. The appellants deserve to be acquitted of the charges filed against them by giving them benefit of doubt. Appeal is allowed.

A.M. Khanwilkar, Ajay Rastogi, JJ

15/2/2019 View judgement PDF

ANJALI BHARDWAJ AND OTHERS Vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Right to Information Act, 2005. The petitioners through this PIL desires transparency and full disclosure of information depicting : (a) definite criteria for such appointments, (b) and such criteria should be made public in advance. SC observes, the petitioners are right in their submissions that there have been undue delays in filling up of these vacancies. We expect that the vacancies shall be filled up, in future, well in time. Supreme Court lays down directions keeping in view the salient purpose for which RTI Act. The Court observes, RTI Act is enacted not only to sub-serve and ensure freedom of speech. On proper implementation, it has the potential to bring about good governance which is an integral part of any vibrant democracy. Attaining good governance is also one of the visions of the Constitution. Appeal is disposed off.

AK Sikri, S Abdul Nazeer, JJ

15/2/2019 View judgement PDF

THE STATE OF GUJARAT Vs PWD AND FOREST EMPLOYEES UNION & ORS.

Gujarat Civil Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2009. SC observes, the respondent workers who have been working on daily wage basis cannot be given casual leave which is more than the entitlement extended to regular Government employees. We accept the plea of the appellant that Government Resolution dated October 17, 1988 which provides for 14 days casual leave including 2 days of voluntary/ optional leave is the result of inadvertent transaction error. The casual leave for daily wagers cannot be more than the regular Government employees. We, therefore, hold that the respondents employees shall be entitled to 12 days of casual leave and 2 days of voluntary leave/restricted leave. Appeal is allowed.

A.K. Sikri, S. Abdul Nazeer, M.R. Shah, JJ

15/2/2019 View judgement PDF

MEHBOOB-UR-REHMAN Vs AHSANUL GHANI

Civil Procedure Code, Section 100. SC observes, the plaintiff-appellant has failed to aver and prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. The Trial Court made a rather assumptive observation that he had proved such readiness and willingness. Thereafter, the plaintiff sought leave to amend the plaint only when the ground to that effect was taken in the first appeal by the defendant. SC states, the late attempt to improve upon the pleadings of the plaint at the appellate stage was only an exercise in futility in the present case. The High Court has rightly pointed out that no substantial question of law as regards the correctness of the order refusing the application for amendment was formulated. Appeal is dismissed.

Abhay Manohar Sapre, Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ

15/2/2019 View judgement PDF

PROF R K VIJAYASARATHY & ANR Vs SUDHA SEETHARAM & ANR

Indian Penal Code, Sections 405, 406, 415 and 420 read with Section 34. In the present case, the son of the appellants has instituted a civil suit for the recovery of money against the first respondent. The suit is pending. The first respondent has filed the complaint against the appellants six years after the date of the alleged transaction and nearly three years from the filing of the suit. SC holds, the averments in the complaint, read on its face, do not disclose the ingredients necessary to constitute offences under the Penal Code. An attempt has been made by the first respondent to cloak a civil dispute with a criminal nature despite the absence of the ingredients necessary to constitute a criminal offence. The complaint filed by the first respondent against the appellants constitutes an abuse of process of court and is liable to be quashed. The judgment of the High Court is set aside and the criminal proceedings instituted by the first respondent against the appellants are quashed. No opinion has been expressed on the merits of the pending civil suit filed by the son of the appellants for the recovery of money. Appeal is allowed.

Dr D.Y. Chandrachud, Hemant Gupta, JJ

15/2/2019 View judgement PDF

ESSAR SHIPPING LTD. Vs THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE PORT OF CALCUTTA

The issue is the alleged negligence of a licensed pilot. SC has found that it was combination of all factors as concluded by the Committee and the matter could not be put at the level of negligence on part of any individual simplicitor. SC observes, it cannot be concluded that the acts of commission or omission on part of the Master of the vessel alone, were responsible for and resulted in causing the damage to the coal loader. He may be held responsible to a certain extent for his non-intimation, but the failure on part of the Berthing Master in doing what was expected of him and other factors were also responsible. The conclusion arrived at by the Committee in the circumstances, which weighed with the Single Judge, is the correct perspective from which the matter is required to be considered. Therefore, the view taken by the trial court was, just and correct and that of the Division Bench was erroneous. Appeal is allowed.

Abhay Manohar Sapre, Uday Umesh Lalit, JJ

15/2/2019 View judgement PDF

PERRY KANSAGRA Vs SMRITI MADAN KANSAGRA

Family Courts Act, Family Court Rules, Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Rules, 2004, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. SC observes, in custody and guardianship disputes between two parties, a minor child is in a peculiar situation. At times, both sides are busy fighting legal battles and the court is called upon in parens patriae to decide what is in the best interest of the child. SC holds, if the reports of the Counsellor touching upon the home environment of the parties concerned, their personalities and their relationship with their child or children would assist the court in determining the custody or guardianship issues, any technicality ought not to stand in the way. Sub-Rule (viii) of Rule 8 seeks to achieve that purpose and makes such material available for the assessment of the court. Statements made by the parents during the course of mediation may not be relied upon on the ground of confidentiality but natural responses and statements made by the minor to the Counsellor would certainly afford a chance to decide what is in the best interest of the child. Appeal is allowed.

Abhay Manohar Sapre, Uday Umesh Lalit, JJ

15/2/2019 View judgement PDF

Latest CaseLaw

Delhi Co-operative Societies Rules,2007

Leave a Reply Cancel reply