Jurisdiction of Wakf Tribunals

Ramesh Gobindram v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf, (2010) 8 SCC 726 at page 738

34. The crucial question that shall have to be answered in every case where a plea regarding exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil court is raised is whether the Tribunal is under the Act or the Rules required to deal with the matter sought to be brought before a civil court. If it is not, the jurisdiction of the civil court is not excluded. But if the Tribunal is required to decide the matter the jurisdiction of the civil court would stand excluded

 

 

 

Delay in payment of compensation: consequences

(1994) 1 SCC 44

Despite voluntary disclosure of income penalty can be levied

http://www.supremelaw.in/2013/10/mak-data-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-of.html

Buyer of a piece of land after section 4 notification does so at his own peril

http://www.supremelaw.in/2013/12/kn-aswathnarayana-setty-d-tr-lrs-ors-vs.html

Anticipatory bail not to be given to absconder

http://www.supremelaw.in/2013/12/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-pradeep.html


Sent through Android app for RSS Feed reading available by:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.news.rssfeedreader

Co-promisor alone can sue for specific performance

AIR 1937 Nag 186

(2009) 3 SCC 141

Supplementing Order by Counter Affidavit

To defend the impugned order, an authority can rely on reasons stated in the order or those on record and cannot provide additional reasons by filing an affidavit . (2005) 7 SCC 627 HPCL v. Darius Shapur

Unconscionable term in the Agreement regarding rehabilitation with the Government of displaced landowners

The Supreme Court applied BrojoNath Ganguly, .. the High Court was not right in refusing to direct the Corporation and othe rofifical respondents to pay compensation to the appellants at par with other landowners. 2013 (10) SCALE 450 Daulat Sitaram Kodne v. State of Maharashtra

 

 

Direction issued for implementation of COTPA

(2013) 10 SCALE  Health for Millions v. Union of India & Ors,

 

Direction issued to Central Government and State Government to rigorously implement the 2003 Act and 2004 Rules.

Cancellation of Promotion After 11 Years

Kusheshwar Nath Pandey v. State of Bihar, (2013) 10 SCALE 227

 

The appellant was not at all in any way at fault. It was time bound promotion which was given to the Appellant. In absence of any fault of the Appellant, the promotion granted by the Respondents cannot be cancelled after 11 years.

Vesting of Right of Appointment (Compassionate)

SBI v. Raj Kumar, (2010) 11 SCC 661

MGB Gramin Bank v. Chakrawarti Singh, (2013) 10 SCALE 223

 

As the appointment on compassionate ground may not be aimed as a matter of right  nor an applicant becomes entitled automatically for appointment, rather it depends on various other circumstances, i.e. eligibility and financial conditions of the family, etc. the application has to be considered in accordance with the scheme.

 

Presumption of Delivery by Registered Post

Coal India Ltd. v. Ananta Saha, (2011) 5 SCC 142 at page 154

23. Similarly, we find no force in the submission made by the delinquent that he did not participate in the disciplinary proceedings and did not make any comment on receiving the enquiry report along with the second show-cause notice as the notices had not been served upon him in accordance with law. The second show-cause notice and the copy of the enquiry report had been sent to him under registered post. Therefore, there is a presumption in law, particularly, under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and Section 114, Illustration (f) of the Evidence Act, 1872 that the addressee has received the materials sent by post. (Vide Greater Mohali Area Development Authority v. Manju Jain [(2010) 9 SCC 157 : (2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 639 : AIR 2010 SC 3817] .)

 

Non Return of AD Card or undelivered

M. Ramjayaram v. GM, South Central Railway, (1996) 8 SCC 266 at page 267

2. Though notice has been sent to Respondents 1 to 5, it has been served only on Respondents 1 to 4. In respect of the 5th respondent, neither AD card nor unserved letter has been received back. In the circumstances, notice must be deemed to have been served on the 5th respondent. They are not appearing either in person or through counsel.

 

Pre Litigation Mediation

K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa, (2013) 5 SCC 226 at page 242,

“46.3. All mediation centres shall set up pre-litigation desks/clinics; give them wide publicity and make efforts to settle matrimonial disputes at pre-litigation stage.”

 

Order without jurisdiction is a nullity

Hasham Abbas Sayyad v. Usman Abbas Sayyad, (2007) 2 SCC 355 at page 363

22. The core question is as to whether an order passed by a person lacking inherent jurisdiction would be a nullity. It will be so. The principles of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence or even res judicata which are procedural in nature would have no application in a case where an order has been passed by the Tribunal/court which has no authority in that behalf. Any order passed by a court without jurisdiction would be coram non judice, being a nullity, the same ordinarily should not be given effect to. [See Chief Justice of A.P. v. L.V.A. Dixitulu[(1979) 2 SCC 34 : 1979 SCC (L&S) 99 : AIR 1979 SC 193] and MD, Army Welfare Housing Organisation v. Sumangal Services (P) Ltd. [(2004) 9 SCC 619] ]

 

Specific Performance of Development Agreement

 Chheda Housing Development Corporation v. Bibijan Shaikh Farid and Ors, 2007 (3) Mh.L.J. 402

Vipin Bhimani and Anr. v. Smt. Sunanda Das, AIR 2006 Cal. 209

Preliminary issue to be decided at commencement

Ujjam Bhai case

Scope of Sections 145 and 146 of CrPC

Ashok Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 3 SCC 366

 

Section 146(1), a Magistrate can pass an order of attachment of the subject of dispute if it be a case of emergency, or if he decides that none of the parties was in such possession, or he cannot decide as to which of them was in possession. Sections 145 and 146 of the Criminal Procedure Code together constitute a scheme for the resolution of a situation where there is a likelihood of a breach of the peace and Section 146 cannot be separated from Section 145,Cr.P.C. It can only be read in the context of Section 145, Cr.P.C. If after the enquiry under Section 145 of the Code, the Magistrate is of the opinion that none of the parties was in actual possession of the subject of dispute at the time of the order passed under Section 145(1) or is unable to decide which of the parties was in such possession, he may attach the subject of dispute, until a competent court has determined the right of the parties thereto with regard to the person entitled to possession thereof.

 

The ingredients necessary for passing an order under Section 145 (1)of the Code would not automatically attract for the attachment of the property. Under Section 146, a Magistrate has to satisfy himself as to whether emergency exists before he passes an order of attachment. A case of emergency, as contemplated under Section 146 of the Code, has to be distinguished from a mere case of apprehension of breach of the peace. The Magistrate, before passing an order under Section 146, must explain the circumstances why he thinks it to be a case of emergency. In other words, to infer a situation of emergency, there must be a material on record before Magistrate when the submission of the parties filed, documents produced or evidence adduced.

Four Steps in determining whether proceedings are to be quashed under Section 482 CrPC

Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330

 

Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.:-

(i) Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the material is of sterling and impeccable quality?

(ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false.

(iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant?

(iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice?

If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused.

 

 

 

Levy of Penalty - Taxation

Price Waterhouse Coopers vs. CIT, JT 2012 (10) SC 523

When there was no malafide intention or concealment, then the levy of the penalty is not justifiable in the eye of law. 

Seized Vehicles Not to be Kept in Police Station for a long time

Multani Hanifbhai Kalubhai v. State of Gujarat, (2013) 3 SCC 240

 

Buffalo calf is not a prohibited animal under Gujarat/Bombay Animal Preservation Act, and therefore vehicle could not have been seized. Whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep the seized vehicle in the police station for a long period.

Only final decision is amenable to Judicial Review

(2013) 4 SCC 340, State of Orissa v. MESCO Steels Limited

 

Only final decision, not provisional or tentative decision is amendable to judicial review. Inter departmental communication which does not finally decide on the rights of the parties does not give rise to a cause of action.

Preliminary Enquiry & Cross Examination in Service Jurisprudence

(2013) 4 SCC 301, Nirmal J. Jhala v. State of Gujarat

 

Preliminary Enquiry

In Naryan Dattatraya Ramteerathakhar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., AIR 1997 SC 2148, this Court dealt with the issue and held as under: "a preliminary inquiry has nothing to do with the enquiry conducted after issue of charge-sheet. The preliminary enquiry is only to find out whether disciplinary enquiry should be initiated against the delinquent. Once regular enquiry is held under the Rules, the preliminary enquiry loses its importance and, whether preliminary enquiry was held strictly in accordance with law or by observing principles of natural justice of nor, remains of no consequence. (Emphasis added)

In view of above, it is evident that the evidence recorded in preliminary inquiry cannot be used in regular inquiry as the delinquent is not associated with it, and opportunity to cross-examine the persons examined in such inquiry is not given. Using such evidence would be violative of the principles of natural justice.

"A prima facie case, does not mean a case proved to the hilt, but a case which can be said to be established, if the evidence which is led in support of the case were to be believed. While determining whether a prima facie case had been made out or not, the relevant consideration is whether on the evidence led, it was possible to arrive at the conclusion in question and not whether that was the only conclusion which could be arrived at on that evidence".

Cross Examination

In Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., AIR 2013 SC 58, this Court while placing reliance upon a large number of earlier judgments held that cross-examination is an integral part of the principles of natural justice, and a statement recorded behind back of a person wherein the delinquent had no opportunity to cross- examine such persons, the same cannot be relied upon.

 

 

 

Duty of High Courts to protect subordinate judiciary

(2013) 4 SCC 301, Nirmal J. Jhala v. State of Gujarat

 

A subordinate judicial officer works mostly in a charged atmosphere. He is under a psychological pressure - contestants and lawyers breathing down his neck. If the fact that he renders a decision which is resented by a litigant or his lawyer were to expose him to such risk, it will sound the death knell of the institution. "Judge bashing" has become a favourite pastime of some people. There is growing tendency of maligning the reputation of judicial officers by disgruntled elements who fail to secure an order which they desire. For functioning of democracy, an independent judiciary, to dispense justice without fear and favour is paramount. Judiciary should not be reduced to the position of flies in the hands of wanton boys.

 

 

Power of Magistrate to issue summons to persons named in FIR but not in charge sheet

(2013) 4 SCC 275, Dhrup Singh v. State of Bihar, following (2010) 9 SCC 479

 

Even if the investigating authority is of the view that no case has been made out against an accused, the magistrate can apply his mind independently to the materials contained in the police report and take cognizance.

Land Acquisition - Release of Land of some of the Affected persons entitles others to same treatment

(2013) 4 SCC 210, Usha Stud and Agricultural Farms Private Limited

 

Once the State Government took a conscious decision to release the lands of [an affected persons and four others], albeit by executing agreements with them, there could be no justification whatsoever for not according similar treatment to the appellants. 

Land Acquisition - Report of Collector and Decision of State Government

(2013) 4 SCC 210, Usha Stud and Agricultural Farms Private Limited

 

 Section 5-A(2), which represents statutory embodiment of the rule of audi alteram partem, gives an opportunity to the objector to make an endeavour to convince the Collector that his land is not required for the public purpose specified in the notification issued under Section 4(1) or that there are other valid reasons for not acquiring the same. That section also makes it obligatory for the Collector to submit report(s) to the appropriate Government containing his recommendations on the objections, together with the record of the proceedings held by him so that the Government may take appropriate decision on the objections. Section 6(1) provides that if the appropriate Government is satisfied, after considering the report, if any, made by the Collector under Section 5-A(2) that particular land is needed for the specified public purpose then a declaration should be made. This necessarily implies that the State Government is required to apply mind to the report of the Collector and take final decision on the objections filed by the landowners and other interested persons. Then and then only, a declaration can be made under Section 6(1).

 

 

General Court Martial and Criminal Procedure Code

(2013) 4 SCC 186, Union of India v. Ajeet Singh

 

GCM is a substitute of criminal trial. While Army Act and Army Rules apply, as CrPC deals with principles of natural justice, thus, the principles applied therein may provide guidelines with respect to misjoinder of charges and a joint trial. (paragraph 16)

Construction of Rules to benefit Employees

1991 Supp (2) SCC 363, Nirmal Chandra Bhattacharjee v. Union of India

 

No rule or order which is meant to benefit employees should normally be construed in such a manner as to work hardship and injustice specially when its operation is automatic and if any injustice arises then the primary duty of the courts is resolve it in such a manner that it may avoid any loss to one without giving undue advantage to other..

 

Followed in State of UP v. Mahesh Narain, (2013) 4 SCC 169

Under 482 CrPC, even non-compoundable offences can be quashed by High Courts

(2013) 4 SCC 58, Jitendra Raghuvanshi v. Babita Raghuvanshi

 

The High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in appropriate cases in order to meet the ends of justice and Section 320 CrPC does not limit or affect the powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrpC. … Even if the offences are non-compoundable, if they relate to matrimonial disputes and the Court is satisfied that the parties have settled the same amicably and without any pressure it is held that for the purpose of securing ends of justice, Section 320 CrPC would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing FIR, complaint or the subsequent criminal proceedings.

Forfeiture of the Right to Appoint Arbitrator

(2013) 4 SCC 35, Deep Trading Company v. Indian Oil Corporation

 

Appointment by the Corporation during the pendency of proceedings under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is non est, as the appointment after forfeiture of its right is of no consequence.

GO whose quashing is sought must be produced before the court

Any government order sought to be challenged before the High Court, must be produced before it. It is improper to quash an order which is not produced before the High Court.

(1986) 4 SCC 667

(2009) 8 SCC 492

 

Relationship between Section 125 CrPC and Section 18 of HAMA

"Proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is summary in nature and intended to provide a speedy remedy to the wife and any order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by compromise or otherwise cannot foreclose the remedy available to a wife under Section 18(2) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act." 

Nagendrappa Natikar Vs. Neelamma dated 15-3-2013 available athttp://www.supremelaw.in/2013/03/nagendrappa-natikar-vs-neelamma.html

Power of Attorney Holder cannot depose in lieu of the person who attorney s/he is

It is a settled legal proposition that the power of attorney holder cannot depose in place of the principal. Provisions of Order III, Rules 1 and 2 CPC empower the holder of the power of attorney to  "act" on behalf of the principal. The word "acts" employed therein is confined only to "acts" done by the power-of-attorney holder, in exercise of the power granted to him by virtue of the instrument. The term "acts", would not include deposing in place and instead of the principal. In other words, if the power-ofattorney holder has preferred any "acts" in pursuance of the power of attorney, he may depose for the principal in respect of such acts, but he cannot depose for the principal for acts done by the principal, and not by him. Similarly, he cannot depose for the principal in respect of a matter, as regards which, only the principal can have personal knowledge and in respect of which, the principal is entitled to be crossexamined. (See: Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao & Anr., AIR 1999 SC 1441; Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani v. Indusind Bank Ltd., (2005) 2 SCC 217; M/S Shankar Finance and Investment v. State of A.P & Ors., AIR 2009 SC 422; and Man Kaur v. Hartar Singh Sangha, (2010) 10 SCC 512).

Relief of Rectification

Subhadra & Ors. v. Thankam, AIR 2010 SC 3031, this Court while deciding upon whether the  agreement suffers from any ambiguity and whether rectification is needed, held that when the description
of the entire property has been given and in the face of the matters being beyond ambiguity, the question  of rectification in terms of Section 26 of the Act would, thus, not arise. The provisions of Section 26 of the Act would be attracted in limited cases. The provisions of this Section do not have a general  application. These provisions can be attracted in the cases only where the ingredients stated in the Section
are satisfied. The relief of rectification can be claimed where it is through fraud or a mutual mistake of the  parties that real intention of the parties is not expressed in relation to an instrument.

 

(Also see: State of Karnataka & Anr. v. K. K. Mohandas &  etc, AIR 2007 SC 2917)

No application lies in disposed of writ petition

Nazma v. Javeda @ Anjum, 2013 (1) SCC 376

Courts have no power of review in criminal matter except carrying out typographical or clerical errors. Practice of entertaining miscellaneous applications after disposal of main petition strongly deprecated.

Scope of Contempt Jurisdiction

Contempt court is precluded from adjudicating on the merits of a controversy by passing supplemental order.
VM Manohar Prasad v. N Ratnam Raju, (2004) 13 SCC 610

See also: (2004) 7 SCC 261