Important Supreme Court Judgements - September 2008

Union of India, Through General Manager, Western Railway, Mumbai and Another vs Fataji Chaturji and Others  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 11 Sep 2008]

Practice & Procedure - Delay and laches - Appeal by special leave challenging the order of High Court refusing to condone the delay of 148 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeals - Held, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the explanations offered, delay in filing the LPAs condoned and LPAs be restored to its original file - However question of maintainability left open for challenge by the parties - Appeal Allowed. 

Union of India and Others vs Talson Builders  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 11 Sep 2008]

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Appeal against order of High Court in application u/s. 11(6) - (A) SLP challenging appointment of an arbitrator (retired judge ) on the ground that the claim could not be referred to the arbitrator because of full and final settlement of the claim - (B) Delay and laches - Delay of 264 days in filing the special leave petition - Held, in the light of Northern Railway Administration, Ministry of Railway, New Delhi vs. Patel Engineering Company Ltd. Supreme Court set aside the order of HC and request the HC to dispose of the application in accordance with law - Held, delay is condoned - Appeal allowed. 

Glaxo Smith Kline Plc and Others vs Controller of Patents and Designs and Others  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 10 Sep 2008]

Patent (Amendment Act), 2005 - Applicability of 78 of amendment Act, to proceedings (claim for Exclusive Marketing Right) which concluded before amendment come into operation - When chap. IV-A which provided the mode of adjudication of the claim of EMR was totally deleted - Submission that a crystalised right had accrued u/ss. 24A and 24B - Held , not applicable - As provisions of s. 78 are conditional provisions and are not intended to cover cases where the application for EMR had been rejected with reference to s. 21 of the Amending enactment; the effect of the repeal has to be ascertained in the background of s. 6 of the General Clauses Act - Appeal Allowed. 

State of Uttar Pradesh vs Awdhesh  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 09 Sep 2008]

IPC, 1860, ss. 314, 392-394 and 396 - Dacoity - Interpretation of statutes - Ambit and scope of the power of an appellate court in an appeal against an order of acquittal ( acquittal from offence u/s. 396 in present case ) - Held, s. 378 makes it clear that no restrictions have been imposed by the legislature on the powers of the appellate court - High Court has full power to reappreciate, review and reconsider the evidence at large, the material on which the order of acquittal is founded and to reach its own conclusions on such evidence - Both questions of fact and of law are open to determination - But law cannot afford any favourite other than truth - While protection given by the criminal process to the accused persons is not to be eroded, at the same time, uninformed legitimization of trivialities would make a mockery of administration of criminal justice - Further held, that though reasonings are not legally supportable but the ultimate conclusion is a possible view - Court declined to interfere, bail bond discharged - Appeal dismissed. 

Mahatma Gandhi University and Another vs Gis Jose and Others  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 08 Sep 2008]

Education - Compromising of the educational standards in admissions by showing unnecessary sympathies - Derogation of observations of Supreme Court - Admission in breach of all possible rules and also allowed to complete the course and write examination - Challenged - Held, illegal - Misplaced sympathies should not have been shown in total breach of the Rules - Appeal Allowed. 

Union of India and Others vs Priyankan Sharan and Another  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 08 Sep 2008]

Defence & Security Forces - Armed Force Medical College - Bond to serve nation on completion of Training - (A) Whether the cadet's prayer for discharge of bond executed to serve the nation for a period of five years on the ground of medical disability has been rightly accepted by the High Court - (B) Interpretation of Statutes - Cadet submitted that proviso of cl. 4(a) has been lost sight of - Relevant clauses 4, 5 and 6 - Construction of - Held, HC's view is a rational one on the facts of each case; these are not the cases where any interference is called for - Held, cl. 4(a) is subject to cl. 6 and the proviso appended to cl. 4 is in the nature of exception; taken note of a maxim 'Ad ea quae frequentius accidunt jura adaptantur' - Appeal Dismissed. 

Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi vs Ishaan Research Lab Private Limited and Others  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 08 Sep 2008]

Central Excise Act - Issue of Classification, Valuation and the Limitation - Whether Tribunal is right in holding that 22 products manufactured by respondent are covered under Sub-heading 3003.30 and not under Chapter 33 of Central Excise Tariff and thus the said products would invite the duty as "Ayurvedic medicines" at the rate of 10% - Held, in order to attract Note 2 to Chapter 33, the product must first be a cosmetic product and that it should be used as such and it should also be put in such packing as declaring it to be a cosmetic product - All these products were produced under the drugs licence issued under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act - There is a claim made in each of the lable of the medicinal properties of the product - There was a specific claim that this is not a cosmetic product - Appeals dismissed. 

Ravi vs State, Represented By Inspector of Police  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 05 Sep 2008]

CrPC, 1973, s. 302 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Conviction for murder u/s. 302 on the basis of solitary witness's evidence - High Court found the evidence of interested and a partisan witness to be clear and cogent and dismissed the appeal - Appeal against - Recovery u/s. 27 of 1972 Act on the basis of confessional statement - (A) Contention that in a murder case the court should insist upon plurality of witnesses - (B) Plea of non possibility of identification - Availability of light - (C) Evidentary value of evidentiary value of evidence of interested and partisian witness - Contention held, is much too broadly stated and Supreme Court declined to interfere with HC judgment - Plea of identification being not possible has no substance - On a consideration authorities and Evidence Act, following propositions may be established that : (1) As a general rule, a court can and may act on the testimony o a single witness though uncorroborated. One credible witness outweighs the testimony of a number of other witnesses of indifferent character;(2) Unless corroboration is insisted upon by statute, courts should not insist on corroboration except in cases where the nature of the testimony of the single witness itself requires as a rule of prudence, that corroboration should be insisted upon, for example in the case of a child witness, or of a witness whose evidence is that of an accomplice or of an analogous character; (3) Whether corroboration of the testimony of a single witness is or is not necessary, must depend upon facts and circumstances of each case and no general rule can be laid down in a matter like this and much depends upon the judicial discretion of the Judge before whom the case comes - Appeal dismissed. 

Fakhruddin Ahmad vs State of Uttaranchal and Another  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 05 Sep 2008]

IPC, 1860, ss. 420, 467, 468 and 471; Cr.P.C, 1973, s. 482 - Petition seeking quashing of the charge sheet dismissed - Appeal against - Held, Magistrate is not bound by the opinion of the investigating officer and he is competent to exercise his discretion in this behalf, irrespective of the view expressed by the police in their report and decide whether an offence has been made out or not - In the absence of material stated to have been filed along with the charge sheet, the High Court did not get an opportunity to apply its mind as to whether on the basis of the material before the Magistrate, a prima facie case had been made out against the accused-appellant - Decision of the High Court dismissing the petition filed by the appellant on the ground that it is not permissible for it to look into the materials placed before the Magistrate is not in consonance with the broad parameters - Matter is remitted back to the High. 

Shivaji @ Dadya Shankar Alhat vs State of Maharashtra  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 05 Sep 2008]

IPC, 1860, ss. 302, 376 (2)(f) - Appeal against conviction and death sentence - Held, for a crime to be proved it is not necessary that the crime must be seen to have been committed and must, in all circumstances be proved by direct ocular evidence by examining before the Court those persons who had seen its commission - Offence can be proved by circumstantial evidence also - If the circumstantial evidence is found to be of unimpeachable character in establishing the guilt of the accused, that forms the foundation for conviction - Circumstances highlighted, establish the depraved acts of the accused, and they call for only one sentence, that is death sentence - Appeal dismissed. 

Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs Modern Engineers Construction Cooperative Society Limited  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 04 Sep 2008]

Income Tax Act, 1961 - Appeal against order of High Court dismissing appeals u/s. 260-A - Claim of deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) - Negatived on the ground that income reflected can neither be attributed to actual labour of members nor can be treated as arising out of collective disposal of its labour - High Court failed to notice that the profit earned by the Society in executing the work was retained by the members themselves - And mixed up the factual position of some other case - Held, remit the matter for fresh consideration in the light of Madas Autorickshaw Drivers v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 1998 INDLAW SC 2175, keeping in view the correct factual position - Court declined to expressed any opinion on the merits of the case - Appeal disposed of. 

Jayant Achyut Sathe vs Joseph Bain D'Souza and Others  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 04 Sep 2008]

Development Control Regulations, 1991, reg. 33(7) - High Court held that reg. 33(7) for the city of Mumbai as amended in the year 1999 does not suffer from any illegality, and the same applies only to dilapidated buildings of 'A' category which satisfy the requirement and those declared prior to the monsoon of 1997 under 3rd proviso are covered under reg. 33(7) and are entitled to extra "Floor Space Index" - Appeals against - Held, High Court was not justified in reading additional requirements into reg. 33(7) after holding the same to be valid - Appeals allowed. 

State of West Bengal vs Shyamadas Banerjee and Another  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 03 Sep 2008]

Constitution - West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949 - CrPC, 1973 - IPC, 1860 - Public Servant - Whether a Special Judge exercising jurisdiction under the provisions of 1949 Act, can take cognizance of an offence against a member of the State Legislative Assembly when he had ceased to be a MLA, though the offence was alleged to have been committed when he was a sitting MLA - Held, since he ceased to be a MLA at a point of time when cognizance was taken by the Special Judge, such cognizance and the proceedings taken on the basis thereof must be held to have been vitiated - Appeal dismissed. 

Kamal Krishan Rastogi and Others vs State of Bihar and Another  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 03 Sep 2008]

Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961, s. 45-B - Order to reopen the land ceiling proceeding - Held, it is quite wrong to say that it was not open to the land holders to question the validity of the reopening order since they had participated in the proceeding after its reopening - Order of the Additional Collector was also unsustainable for the additional reason that it was passed against a dead person - Appeals allowed. 

(1) Camlin Limited; (2) Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai vs (1) Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai; (2) Camlin Limited  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 03 Sep 2008]

Issue regarding classification of the "writing inks" being manufactured and captively consumed by the assessee and consequent demand of duty - Held, when the entries in the HSN and the Indian Tariff Entry are not aligned, reliance cannot be placed upon HSN for the purpose of classification of goods under the said Tariff - One of the factors on which the Tribunal based its conclusion is the entries in the HSN - Marker inks would fall under CSH 3215.10 as the same are used in marker pens which are exempt from the payment of excise duty - Appeals disposed of. 

J. P. Srivastava and Sons (Rampur) Private Limited and Others vs H. K. Srivastava (Dead) Through L.Rs. and Others  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 03 Sep 2008]

Companies Act, ss. 397, 398 - Allegation of mismanagement of the company by the Respondents - Maintainability - CLB held that petitioner did not have the authority of Trust and the petitioner did not have shareholding exceeding 10% of the total shareholding and dismissed the petition - Supreme Court held it maintainable and remanded the case back to single judge - Single judge remanded the case to CLB - Appeal against - Held, it cannot be said that the CLB had not decided all the other matters, since, it had found the original petition to be untenable - Single Judge will now take up all the three appeals filed by the parties against the order of the CLB and dispose of the same in the light of the observations made - Appeals disposed of. 

State, Represented By D.S.P., S.B.C.I.D., Chennai vs K.V. Rajendran and Others  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 02 Sep 2008]

Cr.PC, 1973 - Appeal by special leave under article 136 of constitution- Whether in exercise of the inherent power under section 482 of Cr.PC, 1973 an order disposing of a criminal petition, refusing to grant any relief, could be modified and, thereafter, an investigation, which was with the state police authorities could be transferred to the CBI Matter already disposed of, still High Court ordered transfer - Held HC was not justified in handing over the investigation to the CBI-Appeal allowed. 

New India Co-Operative Housing Society Limited vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Another  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 02 Sep 2008]

Lease - Appeal against withdrawal of stop work notice - Held, when there is a specific stipulation in the Lease Deed that NOC from the lessor has to be obtained for the purpose of obtaining sanction of the building plan from the Municipal Corporation such NOC from the lessor would also be necessary for an amended building plan before the Municipal Corporation can sanction the building plan - Respondent No. 2 has violated clause 3(6) of the Lease Deed dated 31.5.1973 and hence construction as per the amended plan dated 27.12.2004 was wholly illegal - Appeal allowed. 

Madan Kishore vs Major Sudhir Sewal and Others  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 02 Sep 2008]

Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Reforms Act, 1953 - Suit for declaration of title and for possession in respect of the suit land - Whether a sub- tenant under the Act is entitled to file an application for conferring proprietary rights under the Act in respect of the suit land? - Held, it was only the tenant who could make an application under the Act for acquiring proprietary rights in respect of the suit land - Scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions do not indicate that any right was conferred by the Act on the sub-tenant to acquire any proprietary rights in respect of the suit land under the Act - Order conferring proprietary rights on defendant no. 1/appellant by Compensation Officer was without jurisdiction and that the Compensation Officer was lacking jurisdiction in holding that the defendant No. 1/appellant could be conferred proprietary rights in respect of the suit land - Appeal dismissed. 

Supri Advertising and Entertainment Private Limited vs Dr. Anahita Pandole and Others  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 02 Sep 2008]

Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888; Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Maharashtra (Urban Areas) Preservation of Trees Act 1975 - Respondent challenged the permission granted to various advertising agencies for display of hoardings in breach of the guidelines - Held, High Court in its anxiety to ensure the free movement of traffic and the safety of both motorists and pedestrians and to avert any untoward incident, has proceeded to question the decision taken by the competent authorities without having proper material before it to do so - Contrary to the authority vested in the State Government and the local authority under the provisions of s. 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and ss. 328 and 328-A of the 1888 Act, the High Court has given directions which, are beyond the scope of the writ petition - Appeal allowed.

 

 

Pramod Kumar Saxena vs Union of India and Others  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 19 Sep 2008]

Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005, Section 436A- Bail - Article 32 Petition of an under-trial prisoner charged under ss. 406, 409 and 420 r/w S. 120B, IPC, 1860 and S. 138, NI Act, 1881.- Petitioner completed more than ten years in jail. Limited relief granted to the petitioner in accordance with the judgment in V.K. Sharma case. Rejected plea for consolidation of cases and trial of all the cases in one Court in view of judgment in Rajesh Syal case. Direction to appropriate court to release petitioner on bail on his executing a bond. 

Balmiki Singh vs Ram Chander Singh and Others  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 18 Sep 2008]

Indian Penal Code, 1860, ss. 34, 307 - Arms Act, 1959, s. 27 - High Court's decision of acquittal is questioned - Evidence is contrary to the medical evidence - HC noted that there was no explanation for the third injury - Even doctor's evidence shows that the two injuries cannot be treated as an entry and exit rooms - As there were discrepancies in the medical report and FIR so appeal is dismissed. 

State, Represented By Inspector of Police, Tiruchy vs Rettaimandaiyan @ Murugan  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 18 Sep 2008]

IPC, 1860, s. 302 - Appeal against acquittal - Held, only reason indicated by the High Court to discard the evidence of the eye witnesses is that the dying declaration had been discarded - Even if that be so, without indicating any reason as to what deficiency was there in the evidence of eye witnesses, the High Court should not have discarded their evidence - Remitted the matter to the High Court - Appeals partly allowed. 

Food Corporation of India, Kakinada, Represented By District Manager vs Yarlagadda Narayana Apparao and Others  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 17 Sep 2008]

Land Acquisition Act, 1894, s. 23(2), Constitution of India Art. 141 and 142 - solatium - Awardee/decree holder would be entitled to claim interest on solatium in execution though it is not specifically granted by the decree - Interest on solatium can be claimed only in pending executions and not in closed executions and the execution court will be entitled to permit its recovery from the date of the judgment and not for any prior period - Matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration - Appeal Disposed. 

National Insurance Company Limited vs Vidhyadhar Mahariwala and Others  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 17 Sep 2008]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, s. 173 - A sum of Rs.4, 03, 650/- was awarded to the claimant-respondent No.1 - Appeal against - Dispute related to the rejection of appellant's claim for exoneration on the ground of violation of policy condition that the driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle was not in force on the date of accident - Held, insurance company would have no liability in the case of this nature - Appeal allowed. 

Lakhwant Singh vs Jasbir Singh and Others  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 16 Sep 2008]

CrPC, 1973, ss. 482 - Scope and Nature of power of High Court u/s. 482 - Appeal against order of HC allowing the application u/s. 482 for quashing FIR for theft - Statement in FIR that possession of complainant's land was illegally taken in execution of warrant of possession - Investigation was not complete - HC holding that it examined if any objections are filed before the concerned Court that warrant officer/bailiff acted beyond the warrant of possession, and this could not give rise to registration of the crime - Exercise of power u/s. 482 CrPC, 1973 in a case of this nature is the exception and not the rule - Held, powers are very wide and plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise; inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution - Held, it is not permissible for the Court to act as if it was a trial court - Even when charge is framed at that stage, the Court has to only prima facie be satisfied about the existence of sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused - For that limited purpose, the Court can evaluate material and documents on records but it cannot appreciate evidence - The Court should not act on annexures, which cannot be termed as evidence - Appeal Allowed. 

K. M. Mishra vs Central Bank of India  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 16 Sep 2008]

Service - Promotion to the post of Chief Manager, Rajbhasha in Senior Manager Grade, Scale IV in the Central Bank of India - Held, Clause 3 of the Guidelines provides that in case the concerned officer does not submit his self-appraisal within one month of receiving the format, the Reporting Authority would have the right to submit his report concerning the officer to the Reviewing Authority - No substance or merit in the appellant's objections regarding his Performance Appraisal Ratings for the three years in question - Appeal dismissed. 

Ajit Singh and Another vs Jit Ram and Another  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 16 Sep 2008]

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - Appellate authority directed eviction of the respondent on the ground of subletting - High Court in the exercise of its revisional power had interfered with the findings of fact arrived at by the Appellate Authority which was the final authority on fact and set aside the order - Appeal against - Held, High Court in the exercise of its revisional power under the Rent Act was not entitled to interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the Appellate Authority on the question of bonafide requirement of the said shop at the instance of the appellants - A non-residential premises, if required by a son for user by him would cover the requirement of words used in the Section, i.e. "for his own use" in reference to a landlord - Appeal allowed. 

Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras vs Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Limited  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 16 Sep 2008]

Income Tax Act, 1961 - Whether the incentive subsidy received by the assessee is a capital receipt not includible in the total income?; Whether the assessee was entitled to exemption under s. 80 P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of interest received from the members of the society? - Held, main eligibility condition in the scheme is that the incentive must be utilized for repayment of loans taken by the assessee to set up new units or for substantial expansion of existing units - Payment received by the assessee under the Scheme was not in the course of a trade but was of capital nature - Tribunal was required to examine the Memorandum of Association, the Articles of Association, the Return of Income filed with the Department, the status of business indicated in such Returns - Appeals partly allowed. 

Union of India vs Ranu Bhandari  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 16 Sep 2008]

Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 - High Court quashed the detention order - Appeal against - Held, while issuing an order of detention, the Detaining Authority must be provided with all the materials available against the individual concerned, both against him and in his favour - On account of the non-supply of the documents, detenu was prevented from making an effective representation against his detention - Appeal dismissed. 

K. Puttaraju vs A. Hanumegowda  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 15 Sep 2008]

Constitution - Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 - Tenancy - Original eviction petition filed u/s. 27(2)(r) r/w s. 27(2)(j) - Eviction ordered only on the ground of bonafide requirement of shop u/s. 27(2)(r) - Ground u/s. 31 added in eviction petition while pendency in High Court - (A) Interpretation of provisions of s. 27(2)(r) r/w s. 31 of the Act - Legislative intent, is speedy justice i.e. immediate possession of the said premises to the landlord of specified category - (B) Question of amending the eviction petition u/s. 31 at a later stage - When the evidence was over - And ingredients of s. 31 present except requirement in Expln. 2 - Held, two provisions are quite independent of each other and they can be set in motion in the individual fields - Held, no jurisdictional error; Supreme Court decline to interfere in the exercise of discretionary power u/art. 136 of Constitution - Appeal disposed of. 

Collector, Land Acquisition and Another vs Jaswant Singh and Others  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 15 Sep 2008]

Land acquisition - Power of Executing court - Whether interest is payable on the amount of solatium? - Held, High Court was required to examine the position in the light of the decision in Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of India (2006 (8) SCC 457) as the factual position has not been noted by the High Court - Remitted the matter to High Court. 

Union of India and Another vs Shreeji Colour Chem Industries  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 15 Sep 2008]

Central Excise Act, 1944 - Order of High Court directing grant of interest to the respondent for alleged delayed refund of amount - Appeal against - Held, if the claim of interest is on equitable ground, a written demand therefor is imperative - Admittedly no such written demand has been made - In terms of s. 11BB (1), the respondent- assessee is entitled to interest from 12th April, 2004 to 26th August, 2004 - Appeal partly allowed. 

Maranadu and Another vs State By Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 15 Sep 2008]

IPC, ss. 302 r/w 149, 307 - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Held, merely because the eye-witnesses are family members their evidence cannot per se be discarded - Mere statement that being relatives of the deceased they are likely to falsely implicate the accused cannot be a ground to discard the evidence which is otherwise cogent and credible - Merely on surmises the Court should not castigate a prosecution for not examining other persons of the locality as prosecution witnesses - 'Common object' is different from 'common intention' as it does not require a prior concert and a common meeting of minds before the attack - Appeal dismissed. 

C. Krishnan and Othres vs Kistammal and Others  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 15 Sep 2008]

Civil Procedure Code - Whether High Court in the appeal can set aside the decree of the trial Court so far as it relates to the partial relief granted in the suit filed by the plaintiffs-appellants when there was no appeal so far as said relief is concerned? - Held, respondents filed Second Appeal where relief claimed was confined to plaint property Item Nos.1 to 9, which was allowed by the High Court - With regard to Item No.10 the respondents did not file appeal and the High Court should have affirmed the decree granted by the trial Court - Appeal disposed of. 

Lalliram and Another vs State of Madhya Pradesh  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 15 Sep 2008]

IPC, 1860, ss. 376, 342 - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Held, in criminal cases the question of a precedent particularly relating to appreciation of evidence is really of no consequence - If the court finds it difficult to accept the version of a prosecutrix on the face value it may search for evidence direct or circumstantial - Trial Court was justified in directing acquittal and the High Court's judgment upsetting the acquittal is clearly unsustainable - Appeal allowed. 

Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax, Rajkot vs Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Limited  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 15 Sep 2008]

Income Tax Act, 1961 - Claim of exemption under s. 11 rejected - Tribunal recalled its earlier order passed in appeal - Appeal against - Whether Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in exercising power under s. 254(2) on the ground that there was a 'mistake apparent from the record' committed by the Tribunal while deciding the appeal and whether it could have recalled the earlier order on that ground? - Held, if the Tribunal has merely rectified a mistake apparent from the record it was within the power of the Tribunal and no grievance can be made against exercise of such power - An error apparent on the face of the record means an error which strikes on mere looking and does not need long- drawn-out process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions - If the point is covered by a decision of the Jurisdictional Court rendered prior or even subsequent to the order of rectification, it could be said to be "mistake apparent from the record" under s. 254 (2) and could be corrected by the Tribunal - Appeal dismissed. 

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Another vs Motorola India Private Limited  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 15 Sep 2008]

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Whether the levy of liquidated damages under clause 16.2 of the tender document is an "excepted matter" in terms of clause 20.1 of the said document so that the same cannot be referred to arbitration or looked into by the arbitrator?; Whether clause 62 of the special conditions of the tender document will prevail over clause 16.2 of the general conditions of the contract? - Clause 20 is the arbitration clause and provides that any question, dispute or difference arising under this agreement or in connection therewith would be referred to arbitration - There is a clear dispute as to the fact that whether there was any delay on the part of the respondent - Part dealing with Liquidated Damages under clause 62 in fact refers it back to clause 16.2 dealing with the quantification of Liquidated Damages - So it is apparent that there is no dispute between clause 62 and clause 16.2 - Appeal dismissed. 

K.V. Sudharshan vs A. Ramakrishnappa and Others  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 15 Sep 2008]

Suit for partition and separate possession along with mesne profits - Appeal against dismissal of suit - Held, inam lands cannot be regarded as the individual property of the grantee and the High Court has committed an error by holding that since the appellant has not performed functions as archak, nor cultivated the land personally, he was not entitled to seek partition - Appeal is remanded back to the High Court to decide the share of each party in respect of Schedule 'C' properties - Appeal partly allowed. 

Union of India and Others vs Deo Narain and Others  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 15 Sep 2008]

Service - Promotion - Held, when any LDC working in one Collectorate seeks transfer to another Collectorate on compassionate ground, the said action can only be taken on the terms and conditions of the decision of the Government of India and he/she will not be entitled to get his/her service rendered in the former Collectorate to be counted for the purpose of seniority and will be placed at the bottom of the list of employees in the transferred Collectorate - Even if the transfer is voluntary and unilateral, services rendered by an employee would not be wiped off for considering eligibility for promotion to the higher cadre - Central Government has the power to relax the provisions of the Rules and in exercise of the said power under r. 7 Central Government relaxed eligibility condition - Such action, therefore, cannot be held illegal or unlawful and could not have been interfered with by the CAT or by the High Court - Appeal allowed. 

 

 

Bihari Rai vs State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 26 Sep 2008]

IPC, 1860, ss. 34, 96 to 106, 302 and 304 Part I - Appeal against judgment of High Court altering conviction of appellant from one u/ss. 302 r/w 32 to one u/s. 304 Part I , while acquitting the others - (A) Availability of right of private defence - (B) Validity of conviction u/s. 304 Part - Held, no question of exercise of right of private defence as claimed merely because there was a quarrel and some of the accused persons sustained injuries; though such right cannot be weighed in golden scales, it has to be established that the accused persons were under such grave apprehension about the safety of their life and property that retaliation to the extent done was absolutely necessary- Accused has been rightly convicted u/s. 304(1) IPC -Appeal dismissed. 

Aslam @ Deewan vs State of Rajasthan  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 25 Sep 2008]

IPC, 1860, ss. 394 and 392 - Evidence Act, 1872, s. 27 - Sentence - Appeal against conviction and sentence u/s. 394 challenged on the ground that evidence adduced by the prosecution was not sufficient to fasten the guilt - Grievous blow on victim's head by iron rod and snatched his bag - Recovery u/s 27 of evidence Act - Habitual offenders and similar appeals pending - Supreme Court held, declined to interfere as minimum sentence had been awarded - Appeal Dismissed. 

Man Singh and Another vs State of Madhya Pradesh  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 24 Sep 2008]

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, ss. 2(c), 8, 18(b), 21(c), 28 and 29 - Conviction and sentence of 20 years RI and fine - Advocate appointed through Legal Aid Committee did not appear and High Court dismissed appeal without engaging another counsel or appointing an Amicus Curiae - Judge heard the matter with the assistance of Panel Lawyer for respondent (State) - And ss. 42 and 50 not relevant as seizure took place in a public place - Held, considering the seriousness of the offence, HC could have required the Legal Aid Committee to appoint another counsel - Matter remitted back to HC - Appeal Allowed. 

State of Andhra Pradesh vs Guvva Satyanarayana  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 24 Sep 2008]

IPC, 1860, ss. 302, 498A - Appeal against acquittal - Held, High Court found that the accusations so far as s. 302 cannot be established and the dying declaration was not free from suspicion - Order of the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity - Appeal dismissed. 

Ketankumar Babulal Patel vs Kesarben Jesangji and Others  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 23 Sep 2008]

CrPC, 1973, s. 156(3) - IPC, 1860 - Appeal challenging order of High Court that Inquiry u/s.156(3) of the Code is ordered and complaint be registered as an FIR - Submitted that once the cognizance has been taken, the procedure in terms of s. 156(3) of the Code cannot be resorted to and it has to be in terms of ss. 202 and 204 of Penal Code - Held, since the order of the trial Court is not very clear and the HC has not dealt with this aspect, we deem it proper to remit the matter to the trial Court to decide the matter afresh expeditiously in the light of what has been stated in para 16 of Minu Kumari's case (2006 INDLAW SC 142) - Appeal Disposed Of. 

Shakti Bhog Foods Limited vs Kola Shipping Limited  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 23 Sep 2008]

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, s. 45 - Appeal against order referring the dispute between the parties to arbitration in London under the provisions of the English Arbitration Act, 1996 - Held, there existed a charter party between the parties to the suit which can be identified from the correspondence between the parties to that effect as also from the fixture note and the bill of lading signed by the parties - At the request of one of the parties or any person claiming through or under him the court shall refer the parties to arbitration unless it finds that the said agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed - Appeal dismissed. 

Subramanian Swamy vs Election Commission of India, Through Its Secretary  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 23 Sep 2008]

Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 - Challenge against clause 10A inasmuch as it allowed a period of 6 years (only) as a grace period to retain its symbol which was earlier rightfully reserved for it, even after the said party lost its status, as a recognized party due to its dismal performance, in national or State election which was added by amendment of Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 - Right of Janata Party to permanently retain its symbol - Held, a party must have a following and it is only a political party having substantial following in terms of Clauses 6A, 6B and 6C would have a right for a reserved symbol - A recognized political party would have a right of exclusive use of the symbol but the Symbols Order makes it very clear that such right to use the symbol can be lost with the dismal performance of the party - Appeal dismissed. 

Shahu Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Another vs Lata P. Kore and Others  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 23 Sep 2008]

Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 - Writ Petition filed by the appellant was dismissed on the ground that the same was not maintainable - Held, grounds raised in the petition suggest that the petition is not only under art. 227 but also under art. 226 of the Constitution - It is to be seen that in the grounds raised against the order of the Tribunal, it is specifically suggested that the order passed by the Tribunal was arbitrary, unreasonable, unjust and perverse - Effect of the provisions and the decisions referred does not appear to have been considered by the High Court while holding that the Letters Patent Appeal was not maintainable - Appeal partly allowed. 

K. Alex vs Delhi State Mineral Deveplopment Corporation  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 23 Sep 2008]

Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, r. 5(1) - Termination - Whether it was arbitrary and illegal on the part of the Corporation not to implement its re- deployment policy in the case of the appellant, even though his name appeared at Serial No.48 in the list of retrenched employees to be redeployed and when all but the appellant were redeployed? - Held, when the services of an employee are terminated on closure of a project or for some other reason, the employee cannot seek re-employment in some other organization as of right - But it cannot be ignored that the present case is not so much about the appellant's right to hold the post on abolition of post but about the appellant's right to claim re-deployment in terms of the policy of the Corporation particularly when the policy was implemented in respect of all the other employees who were retrenched and similarly placed - Appeal allowed. 

Bank of India vs Mehta Brothers and Others  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 23 Sep 2008]

Suit for recovery of Rs.91, 58, 480.08, being the amount of Letter of Credit and interest - Whether, under the proviso to O. 9 r. 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a decree passed in favour of the contesting defendants can be set aside as against a defendant also being part of the same suit, on an application made by him, for setting aside an ex-parte decree against him? - Held, there was no provision to set aside an ex parte decree only against the defendant against whom the ex parte decree was passed and who had, accordingly, made an application for setting it aside - If an ex parte decree was to be set aside by the court, the same had to be set aside in toto i.e. as against all the defendants in the suit - Single judge was fully justified in restoring the suit in toto and was correct in setting aside the entire decree and restore the suit in its entirety on an application under O. 9 r. 13 of the Code which also, was correct in the approach of O. 9 r. 13 of the Code - Appeal allowed. 

Hemaji Waghaji Jat vs Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan and Others  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 23 Sep 2008]

Suit for declaration of permanent injunction - Adverse possession - Held, classical requirements of acquisition of title by adverse possession are that such possession in denial of the true owner's title must be peaceful, open and continuous - Possession must be open and hostile enough to be capable of being known by the parties interested in the property, though it is not necessary that there should be evidence of the adverse possessor actually informing the real owner of the former's hostile action - First appellate court and the High Court have categorically held that the appellant has miserably failed to establish title to the suit land, therefore, he is not entitled to the ownership - Appeal dismissed. 

T. Jayakumar vs A. Gopu and Another  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 22 Sep 2008]

Appointment as Extra Departmental Branch Post Master - Respondent no.1 submitted his application but he omitted to put his signature, realising his mistake he sent another application duly filled-up but it was received by the authorities after the last date for submission of applications - Appellant selected and the appointment and selection was challenged - Tribunal directed to accept his application as duly filled and received within time - High Court writ was filled and it was dismissed - Supreme Court appeal filed challenging the decision of Trial court and HC - He inadvertently omitted to put his signature on his application form, having regard to the special facts of the case the concerned postal authorities are directed to find out a suitable vacant position against which respondent no.1 may be adjusted - In case no suitable post is available at present he should be accommodated in the next vacancy of EDBPM arising in future - Appeal allowed. 

Union of India vs Y.S. Sadhu, Ex-Inspector  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 22 Sep 2008]

Service - Dismissal - Single Judge directing re-instatement of writ petitioner in service without payment of back wages on the ground that the witnesses examined earlier were not produced for cross examination - Appeal against - Held, Court/Tribunal should not mechanically set aside the order of punishment - There shall not be any reinstatement but the proceedings shall continue from the stage where it stood before the alleged vulnerability surfaced - Appeal partly allowed. 

State of Punjab vs Karnail Singh  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 22 Sep 2008]

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Respondent Manager of Punjab Agricultural Development Bank at Budladha - High Court held that respondent not falls within the definition of public servant - Appeal against - High Court has not analysed the factual position - It is also not known whether the details asked by the High Court like the total share capital of the Bank and as to whether it falls within the definition of Government Company were supplied or not - Effect of the affidavit filed by the Managing Director also was not considered - Remitted the matter to High Court. 

Basavaraja and Others vs State of Karnataka  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 22 Sep 2008]

IPC, 1860, s. 302 r/w 34 - Appeal against order of High Court setting aside the acquittal of appellant - Held, charges were framed on totally unfounded premises and even in the examination under s. 313 of Cr.P.C, with reference to the evidence of PW 7 it was stated that the death was due to smothering- If that to be so, the question of the accused persons having caused the death by burning does not arise- Such casual framing of charge and examination under Section 313 of the Code is a disturbing feature - Appeal allowed. 

Premiya @ Prem Prakash vs State of Rajasthan  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 22 Sep 2008]

IPC, 1860, ss. 376 - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Held, close reading of the evidence of the prosecutrix, it is clear that the accused outraged the modesty but had not raped her - In order to constitute the offence under s. 354 IPC mere knowledge that the modesty of a woman is likely to be outraged is sufficient without any deliberate intention of having such outrage alone for its object - Altered the conviction of the accused from s. 376 IPC to s. 354 - Appeal allowed. 

Pramod Kumar Saxena vs Union of India and Others  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 19 Sep 2008]

Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005, Section 436A- Bail - Article 32 Petition of an under-trial prisoner charged under ss. 406, 409 and 420 r/w S. 120B, IPC, 1860 and S. 138, NI Act, 1881.- Petitioner completed more than ten years in jail. Limited relief granted to the petitioner in accordance with the judgment in V.K. Sharma case. Rejected plea for consolidation of cases and trial of all the cases in one Court in view of judgment in Rajesh Syal case. Direction to appropriate court to release petitioner on bail on his executing a bond. 

Union of India vs K.H. Srinivasan and Others  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 19 Sep 2008]

Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 - High Court directed the official respondents to appoint the applicant B. Jkamalanabhan to the IPS against the vacancy that occurred in the year 1998 with effect from 18.01.2000, the date of the Notification impugned - Appeal against - Held, since the High Court has not considered the effect of the amendment in 1997 and the applicability of the ratio in Syed Khalid Rizvi & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [1993 Suppl. (3) SC 575] and Union of India & Ors. v. Vipinchandra Hiralal Shah [1996(6) SCC 721] remitted the matter to it to consider the matter afresh in the light of the amended Regulations - Appeals partly allowed. 

Dhirendra Pandua vs State of Orissa and Others  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 19 Sep 2008]

Orissa Municipal Act, 1950, s. 38 - Appellant was disqualified as a Councillor of a Municipality under ss. 16(1) (iv) and 17(1) (b) being a leprosy patient - Appeal against - Held, s. 17(1)(b) lays down that a Councillor shall cease to hold his office if he becomes of unsound mind, a leprosy or a tuberculosis patient - On an elaborate analysis of the evidence, so led by both the sides, the District Judge came to the conclusion that the appellant was still suffering from risk prone leprosy - Appeal dismissed. 

State of Maharashtra vs Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 19 Sep 2008]

IPC, 1860, ss. 307, 504 - High Court refused to grant leave to appeal to the State against an order of acquittal - Appeal against - Held, in an appeal against acquittal, the High Court has full power to re- appreciate, review and reweigh at large the evidence on which the order of acquittal is founded and to reach its own conclusion on such evidence - Both questions of fact and of law are open to determination by the appellate Court - High Court was not right in rejecting the application for leave on the ground that the judgment of the trial Court could not be termed as 'perverse' - Appeal allowed.

 

 

(1) C.R. Patil; (2) Chotubhai Eknath Patil vs State of Gujarat and Others  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 03 Oct 2008]

Practice and Procedure - Appeals against dismissal of bail applications of company's director by High Court - Released on bail by interim order after undertaking - Contention that in view of full payment of dues under One Time Settlement (OTS) scheme of the bank under liquidation, condition imposed by the HC in the interim order does not survive and his properties may be ordered to be released from attachment and relieving him of the undertaking given to HC - Held, properties are ordered to be released - appellant is also relieved of the undertaking - Appeal Allowed. 

Krishna Gopal Kakani vs Bank of Baroda  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 30 Sep 2008]

Limitation Act, 1908 - Banking and Finance - Court directing adjustment of another account holder's debt to be adjusted against appellant's bank dues - Bank's reply to notices was that it was awaiting instructions from Head Office - Question of limitation arise - High Court holding that suit would be governed by arts. 22 and 24 of the Act and that limitation of three years would start from the date of receipt of the money or 3 years from the date when the demand had first been made - (A) Submission that suit was governed by s. 10 of the Act or in the alternative, art. 113 thereof and the finding of HC that it was governed by the provisions of arts. 22 and 24 ibidem was erroneous - (B) Plea of ignorance - (C) Whether it is inappropriate for a Public Sector Undertaking (Bank) to raise a plea of limitation especially when the amount was due to the appellant - Held, primary argument with regard to art. 113, does not advance the case of the appellant - Plea of ignorance is clearly untenable in view of the documents referred - Bank was fully justified in taking the plea of limitation - Appeal Dismissed. 

State of Himachal Pradesh vs Manoj Kumar @ Chhotu  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 29 Sep 2008]

CrPC, 1973, ss. 378(3), - IPC, 1860, ss. 376, 511 and 506 - Appeal against summary dismissal of application u/s. 378(3) for grant of leave by High Court - Acquittal by trial court by giving benefit of doubt - If the decision reveals the inscrutable face of the sphinx, it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review - Held, HC shall entertain the appeal and after formal notice dispose it of in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observation - Leave granted - Appeal allowed. 

Balwant Singh and Others vs State of Himachal Pradesh  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 29 Sep 2008]

IPC, 1860, ss. 498A - Appeal against conviction - Held, consequences of cruelty which are likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health, whether mental or physical of the woman are required to be established in order to bring home the application of s. 498A - A person charged and acquitted under s. 304B can be convicted under s. 498A without that charge being there, if such a case is made out - Considering the age of the father-in-law and mother-in-law and the period of sentence already undergone by them while upholding the conviction the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone - Appeal disposed of. 

State of Punjab and Another vs Ashwani Kumar and Others  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 29 Sep 2008]

Service - Appeal against order of High Court holding that the ad-hoc services of the respondents were to be counted for the purpose of seniority - Held, Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Haryana Veterinary & AHTS Association and Anr. (2000 (8) SCC 4) took the view that for calculating 8/18 years service required for giving higher scale of pay and for determination of seniority only regular service rendered by the employee is to be counted and not ad-hoc service - Appeal allowed.  

Baby Manji Yamada vs Union of India and Another  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 29 Sep 2008]

Commissions For Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 - Challenge to certain directions given by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court relating to production/custody of a child - Held, if any action is to be taken that has to be taken by the Commission - It has a right to inquire into complaints and even to take suo motu notice of matters relating to, (i) deprivation and violation of child rights (ii) non-implementation of laws providing for protection and development of children and (iii) non-compliance of policy decisions, guidelines or instructions aimed at mitigating hardships to and ensuring welfare of the children and to provide relief to such children, or take up the issues arising out of such matters with appropriate authorities - Petition disposed of. 

Ram Kumar and Another vs State of Rajasthan and Others  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 29 Sep 2008]

Code of Civil Procedure, s. 80 - Held, in the plaint, no act of respondent No.3 is being challenged - Appellants do not seek to set aside any order of the respondent No.3 or to declare illegal any of the acts of respondent No.3, it merely seeks a decree for recovery of possession in the suit to hand over possession of the suit land to the appellants - Suit which is not in respect of any act done by the respondent No.3, as a public officer, and in which no act of respondent No.3 is either challenged or sought to be set aside is not a suit to which Section 80 of the CPC can very well apply - High Court had fallen in error in reversing the order of the trial Court holding that service of notice on respondent NO. 3 under s. 80 of the CPC was not necessary to be served to maintain the suit - Appeals partly allowed. 

Bihari Rai vs State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 26 Sep 2008]

IPC, 1860, ss. 34, 96 to 106, 302 and 304 Part I - Appeal against judgment of High Court altering conviction of appellant from one u/ss. 302 r/w 32 to one u/s. 304 Part I , while acquitting the others - (A) Availability of right of private defence - (B) Validity of conviction u/s. 304 Part - Held, no question of exercise of right of private defence as claimed merely because there was a quarrel and some of the accused persons sustained injuries; though such right cannot be weighed in golden scales, it has to be established that the accused persons were under such grave apprehension about the safety of their life and property that retaliation to the extent done was absolutely necessary- Accused has been rightly convicted u/s. 304(1) IPC -Appeal dismissed. 

Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board vs Laxmi Kant Gupta  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 26 Sep 2008]

U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Termination - Order of reinstatement without backwages - Appeal against - Held, there is no hard and fast principle now that on the termination of service being found to be illegal, the normal rule is re-instatement with back wages - Compensation can be awarded instead, at the discretion of the Labour Court - Appeal allowed. 

Uttar Pradesh State Sugar and Cane Development Corporation Limited vs Chini Mill Mazdoor Sangh and Others  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 26 Sep 2008]

Labour case - Whether even in the light of the Tribunal's finding that the work performed by the respondent Nos. 2-15 was of a permanent nature on account whereof their services were required throughout the year, it could have declared the said workmen to be permanent? - Held, this is not a case of fitment depending on the nature of the work performed, but a case of promotion as and when vacancies are available - Both the Labour Court as well as the High Court do not appear to have considered this aspect of the matter with the attention it deserved and proceeded on the basis that this was a case where the respondent Nos. 2-15 had been denied their right to be categorised as permanent workmen on account of the nature of the work performed by them throughout the year - Appeal allowed. 

Durgesh Sharma vs Jayshree  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 26 Sep 2008]

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, ss. 22, 23 - Power, authority and jurisdiction to transfer suits/appeals/other proceedings by a High Court from one Court subordinate to it to another Court subordinate to another High Court - Held, if two courts are subordinate to different High Courts, one High Court has no power, jurisdiction or authority to transfer a case pending in any court subordinate to that High Court to a Court subordinate to other High Court. It is only the Supreme Court which may order the transfer - Appeal disposed of. 

Budhi Lal vs State of Uttarakhand  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 26 Sep 2008]

IPC, 1860, s. 302 - Appeal against conviction - Held, presence of PW.3 has been clearly established by evidence on record - Held, even if the intention of accused was limited to the infliction of a bodily injury sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, and did not extend to the intention of causing death, the offence would be murder - Considering the factual scenario and the manner of assault appropriate conviction shall be under s. 304 Part-I- Appeal partly allowed. 

Prabha Mathur and Another vs Pramod Aggarwal and Others  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 26 Sep 2008]

IPC, ss. 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w 34 and 120B - Trial Court held that the entire case was of a civil nature - High Court remanded the matter to the learned Magistrate with a direction to make further inquiry in the matter and to pass an appropriate order - Appeal against - Held, High Court ought to have issued notice and afforded hearing before passing the impugned order in writ-petitions - Appeal allowed. 

Aslam @ Deewan vs State of Rajasthan  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 25 Sep 2008]

IPC, 1860, ss. 394 and 392 - Evidence Act, 1872, s. 27 - Sentence - Appeal against conviction and sentence u/s. 394 challenged on the ground that evidence adduced by the prosecution was not sufficient to fasten the guilt - Grievous blow on victim's head by iron rod and snatched his bag - Recovery u/s 27 of evidence Act - Habitual offenders and similar appeals pending - Supreme Court held, declined to interfere as minimum sentence had been awarded - Appeal Dismissed. 

Steel Authority of India Limited and Another vs State of West Bengal and Others  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 25 Sep 2008]

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Challenge to the reference made by the Government of West Bengal of a purported industrial dispute under s. 7-A dismissed - Appeal against - Plea that reference was incompetent in view of what has been stated by this Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Waterfront Workers (2001 (7) SCC 1) - Held, State Government has jurisdiction to deal with the matter and automatic absorption is not permissible in law - The orders of a learned Single Judge and the Division Bench assailed in the appeals directing absorption were bad in law - It is inter party decision - Appeal allowed. 

Manoj and Another vs State of Madhya Pradesh  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 25 Sep 2008]

IPC, ss. 324 r/w 34 - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Petition to compound the offence - Held, voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means by the accused constitutes an offence under s. 324 which can be compounded by person to whom hurt is caused with the permission of the Court in terms of s. 320(2) Cr.P.C - Allow the parties to compound the offence - Appeal disposed of. 

Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur vs New Decent Footwear Industries  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 25 Sep 2008]

Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held, as the Revenue had accepted the decision in the case of Bata India Ltd. arising from the same order of the authority in original and there being no change on facts the appeal against the respondent could not be proceeded with - Revenue was not justified in invoking the extended period of limitation - Appeal dismissed. 

Man Singh and Another vs State of Madhya Pradesh  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 24 Sep 2008]

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, ss. 2(c), 8, 18(b), 21(c), 28 and 29 - Conviction and sentence of 20 years RI and fine - Advocate appointed through Legal Aid Committee did not appear and High Court dismissed appeal without engaging another counsel or appointing an Amicus Curiae - Judge heard the matter with the assistance of Panel Lawyer for respondent (State) - And ss. 42 and 50 not relevant as seizure took place in a public place - Held, considering the seriousness of the offence, HC could have required the Legal Aid Committee to appoint another counsel - Matter remitted back to HC - Appeal Allowed. 

State of Andhra Pradesh vs Guvva Satyanarayana  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 24 Sep 2008]

IPC, 1860, ss. 302, 498A - Appeal against acquittal - Held, High Court found that the accusations so far as s. 302 cannot be established and the dying declaration was not free from suspicion - Order of the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity - Appeal dismissed. 

Naren Chandra Naskar vs Arun Bhattacharya and Others  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 24 Sep 2008]

Sale deed - Genuineness - Held, without disturbing the findings of the District Registrar with regard to the genuineness of the Sale Deed of the respondent No.1, directed the Inspector General of Registration, West Bengal, to conduct a separate enquiry into the matter, with reference to the genuineness of the appellant's document, and to pass appropriate orders - Appeal partly allowed.