M/S N RAMACHANDRA REDDY V. THE STATE OF TELANGANA

SC- Allowing the appeal in a case relating to invitation of bids for award of work of construction of BT Road in Mahabubabad District of Telangana State, the Hon’ble SC observed that the act of the Chief Engineer to call for a report from Superintending Engineer, Karimnagar was fair and not arbitrary. As the issue does not relate to strict construction of territorial jurisdiction, it is always open for the decision-making authority, to have a report from the independent authority, to arrive at the just decision.-Hon'ble Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and R.Subhash Reddy [28-08-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/ms-n-ramachandra-reddy-vs-the-state-of-telangana

CHANDRAKANT BABAN MOTKARI . V. GOTIRAM LAXMAN MOTKARI(D) BY LRS.

SC-In a case relating to a property matter, the Hon’ble SC while dismissing the Appeal opined that the Kabuliyatnama was never in the name of the elder brother and the certificate under Sec. 32M of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 was granted in favour of the younger brother. The Agreement to Sell never matured into a sale deed and this was not a case where a suit was required to be stayed and the question of tenancy remitted to the Mamlatdar. The long drawn out proceedings initiated by the grandsons of Laxman were proceedings by “side wind”, which have dragged on for the last 16 years.-Hon'ble Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and K.M. Joseph[27-08-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/chandrakant-baban-motkari-vs-gotiram-laxman-motkari(d)-by-lrs

NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA V. SAYEDABAD TEA CO. LTD. AND ORS

SC-Setting aside the Calcutta HC orders, in as case relating to appointment of an Arbitrator by the Central Government with respect to Sec. 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956,the Hon’ble SC held that in view of the power being vested exclusively with the Central Government to appoint an Arbitrator under Sec. 3G(5) of the Act 1956, being a special enactment, the application filed under Sec. 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 for appointment of an Arbitrator was not maintainable and provisions of the Act, 1996 could not be invoked for the purpose.-Hon'ble Justices N.V. Ramana,Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Ajay Rastogi[27-08-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/national-highways-authority-of-india-vs-sayedabad-tea-co-ltd-and-ors

RAMESHWAR . V. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

SC-Affirming the conviction of appellant No.2-Balaram under Sec. 302 IPC read with Sec. 34 IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon him, the Hon’ble SC opined that the presence of appellant No.2 has been established by consistent evidence of the eye-witnesses and he was armed with rifle and thus shared the common intention acting in concert with accused Rameshwar and has been proved to have acted in furtherance of the common intention. To invoke Section 34 IPC, it must be established that the criminal act was done by more than one person in furtherance of common intention of all. -Hon'ble Justices R.Banumathi and A.S. Bopanna[21-08-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/rameshwar-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh

www.plclaws.com

M/S KUT ENERGY PVT.LTD V. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

SC- Setting aside the order of the Himachal Pradesh HC and directing  that the amount deposited by the appellants in terms of the order dated 11.10.2017 be returned to them, the Hon’ble SC held that the deposit of Rs.40 crores in terms of the HC order made by the appellant was only to show the bona fides of the appellants when a revised offer was made by them. It was not towards satisfaction of the debt in question and that is precisely why the HC directed the deposit would be treated to be a deposit in the Registry of the HC. It reiterated the law laid down in Axis Bank that the ‘secured creditor’ would be entitled to proceed only against the ‘secured assets’ mentioned in the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act.-Hon'ble Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet Saran[20-08-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/ms-kut-energy-pvtltd-vs-the-authorized-officer-punjab-national-bank

SALEEM AHMED V. STATE

SC-Allowing the petition filed under Sec. 482 of the CrPC and quashing the FIR,the Hon’ble SC opined that once the dispute in relation to recovery of outstanding amount was finally settled between the appellant and BSES amicably in Lok Adalat resulting in passing of the award in full and final satisfaction of the entire claim, there was neither any occasion and nor any basis to file FIR by the BSES against the appellant in respect of the cause which was subject matter of an award. The filing of FIR after passing of the award by the Lok Adalat was wholly unjust and not legally sustainable.-Hon'ble Justices Abhay Manohar Sapre and R. Subhash Reddy[19-08-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/saleem-ahmed-vs-state

www.plclaws.com

STATE OF RAJASTHAN V. SHIV DAYAL

SC- Allowing the appeal and remanding the case to the HC,the Hon’ble SC reiterated that if the Appellate Court affirms the finding, it is called “concurrent finding of fact” whereas if the finding is reversed, it is called "reversing finding". When any concurrent finding of fact is assailed in second appeal, the appellant is entitled to point out that it is bad in law because it was recorded de hors the pleadings or it was based on no evidence or it was based on misreading of material documentary evidence or it was recorded against any provision of law and lastly, the decision is one which no Judge acting judicially could reasonably have reached.-Hon'ble Justices Abhay Manohar Sapre and R. Subhash Reddy[14-08-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/state-of-rajasthan-vs-shiv-dayal

www.plclaws.com

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4 MUMBAI V. M/S S.G. ASIA HOLDINGS (INDIA) PVT. LTD

SC- In a case relating to assessment proceedings wherein the respondent was directed to furnish details about the parent company and the rate of brokerage, the Hon’ble SC affirmed the view of the tribunal that the transfer pricing adjustment made by the Assessing Officer was contrary to the mandatory instructions issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes in its Instruction No.3/2003 dated 20.05.2003 and by not making reference to the TPO, the AO had breached the mandatory instructions issued by the CBDT. It would therefore be upto the authorities and the Commissioner concerned to consider the matter in terms of Sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 92CA of Income Tax Act, 1961.-Hon'ble Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet Saran[13-08-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/the-principal-commissioner-of-income-tax-4-mumbai-vs-ms-sg-asia-holdings-(india)-pvt-ltd

VINOD KUMAR V. ASHOK KUMAR GANDHI

SC-The Hon’ble SC did not find any good ground to refer the judgment of this Court in Satyawati Sharma (Dead) by LRs. Vs. UOI for reconsideration by a larger Bench. It observed that the case of Satyawati  Sharma which held that sec. 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act,1958  is violative of the doctrine of equality embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution insofar as it discriminates between the premises let for residential and non-residential purposes when the same are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him and restricts the latter's right to seek eviction of the tenant from the premises let for residential purposes only, cannot be held to be per incuriam.-Hon'ble Justices Ashok Bhushan and K.M. Joseph[05-08-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/vinod-kumar-vs-ashok-kumar-gandhi

ASST. PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EPFO, BAREILLY V. M/S U P STATE WAREHOUSING CORP

SC-The Hon’ble SC remanding the matter to the Allahabad HC for deciding the Corporation's writ petition afresh on merits keeping in view the definition of "employee'' as defined under Sec. 2(f) of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, held that the definition of "employee" under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Act is not identical to the one defined under Sec. 2(f) of the Act in question and secondly, the object of these acts is not the same. The issue was to be decided independently and de hors the proceedings decided under the ID Act.-Hon'ble Justices Abhay Manohar Sapre and R. Subhash Reddy[14-08-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/asst-provident-fund-commissioner-epfo,-bareilly-vs-ms-u-p-state-warehousing-corp

www.plclaws.com

KANWALJIT SINGH V. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

SC-In a case relating to the extent of the liability of the Insurance Company with regard to individual claim under Family Mediclaim Policy, the Hon’ble SC affirmed that the maximum claim which could be payable in the present case would be 50% of the sum insured under the Policy for the medical treatment of one member of the family, which was Master Jasnoor Singh. The claim could not have been repudiated by the Insurance Company as there was no pre-existing disease when the initial individual Mediclaim Policy was taken in the year 2007-2008 and it was regularly renewed up to the year 2014-2015.-Hon'ble Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet Saran[14-08-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/kanwaljit-singh-vs-national-insurance-company-ltd

www.plclaws.com

WAINGANGA BAHUDDESHIYA VIKAS SANSTHA THR. PRESIDENT B.B. KARANJEKAR V. KU. JAYA

SC-Setting aside the Bombay HC order,the Hon’ble SC observed that the appointment of respondent no. 1 is categorically on ad-hoc basis till such time full time Lecturer is appointed. The appointment of respondent No. 1 was not on probation but, it was purely ad-hoc appointment and the Management has kept right to terminate the services during ad-hoc period on account of unsatisfactory work.- Hon'ble Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta [09-08-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/wainganga-bahuddeshiya-vikas-sanstha-thr-president-bb-karanjekar-vs-ku-jaya

THE DIRECTOR OF HORTICULTURE V. PRAVAT KUMAR DASH

SC-In a case relating to appointment to the post of gardeners, the Hon’ble SC stated that selection of the candidates for training as Gardeners was not by way of transparent procedure nor there was any commitment to appoint candidates who have completed training, therefore, even if a candidate has completed training, he cannot seek right of employment unless such posts are advertised and filled up by giving opportunity to all similarly situated candidates .The order of the Tribunal and the HC, directing the State to appoint the applicants as Gardeners is beyond their jurisdiction vested in the HC as there cannot be any direction for making appointment to the public post in such a manner.- Hon'ble Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta [09-08-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/the-director-of-horticulture-vs-pravat-kumar-dash

CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION V. HARI RAM

SC-Setting aside the order of the Punjab and Haryana HC, in an appeal filed by the Chandigarh Administration, the Hon’ble SC observed that the slump in the business cannot be the reason for default in payment of the lease rent and the ground rent. It directed that the Administration shall confirm the allotment if the amount ordered is paid within six months but failure to do so will entitle the Administration to proceed with eviction in accordance with law.- Hon'ble Justices R.Banumathi and A.S. Bopanna [06-08-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/chandigarh-administration-vs-hari-ram

R.JAYAPAL V. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU

SC-Altering the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC to the one under Part-I of Sec. 304 IPC, the Hon’ble SC held that the act of the appellant leading to the death was with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. It extended the benefit of Exception 4 of Sec. 300 IPC to the appellant as the incident in question took place without any premeditation, in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, when the deceased attempted entry into his house; and the appellant did neither take any undue advantage nor acted in a cruel or unusual manner.-Hon'ble Justices Abhay Manohar Sapre and Dinesh Maheshwari [09-08-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/rjayapal-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu

M/S SHAHI AND ASSOCIATES V. STATE OF U.P.

SC-Restoring the interest awarded by the Arbitrator in accordance with Sec. 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996, the Hon’ble SC held that though the agreement was earlier to the date of coming into force of the Act of 1996, the proceedings admittedly commenced in the year 1999 and were conducted in accordance with the Act of 1996. If that be so, para 7-A of Sec. 24 of the U.P. Amendment Act has no application to the case at hand and so both the HC and the District Judge were not justified in reducing the rate of interest by following the U.P. Amendment Act.-Hon'ble Justices Arun Mishra, S. Abdul Nazeer and M.R. Shah[08-08-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/ms-shahi-and-associates-vs-state-of-up

MALLIKARJUN V. STATE OF KARNATAKA

SC-The Hon’ble SC while confirming the conviction of the accused No.1 and 2,observed  that there was no inordinate delay in the receipt of FIR in the court and the findings of the trial court and HC that the delay in lodging the complaint and receipt of FIR in the court have been properly explained, do not suffer from infirmity. It stated that the conviction is based upon proper appreciation of evidence and the reasonings are well balanced.-Hon'ble Justices R.Banumathi and A.S. Bopanna [08-08-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/mallikarjun-vs-state-of-karnataka

MAHESH KUMAR V. STATE OF HARYANA

SC-While setting aside the conviction of the appellant in an appeal against the Punjab & Haraya HC decision, the Hon’ble SC observed that the prosecution failed to prove either the demand of dowry or that any such demand was raised soon before the death of the deceased. Hence, the essential ingredients of offence under Sec. 304-B of IPC were not proved by the prosecution. It even failed to prove the initial presumption under Sec. 113-B of the Evidence Act and the allegations levelled against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.-Hon'ble Justices L.Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta [07-08-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/mahesh-kumar-vs-state-of-haryana

KATHI DAVID RAJU V. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.

SC-While allowing the appeal in a case with regard to obtaining false caste certificate, the Hon’ble SC opined that it was too early to request for conduct of DNA test without carrying out substantial investigation by the police authorities. The Additional Junior Civil Judge also failed to notice that in the investigation conducted by the Investigating Authority no such materials have been brought on the basis of which it could have been opined that conducting DNA test is necessary for the appellant on his mother and two brothers.-Hon'ble Justices Ashok Bhushan and Navin Sinha[05-08-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/kathi-david-raju-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-anr

DR. SRIDIP CHATTERJEE V. DR. GOPA CHAKRABORTY

SC-In a case relating to selection and appointment of appellant to the post of Assistant Professor in Yoga Therapy of the Jadavpur University, the Hon’ble SC reinstated the appellant in service  and observed that both the Selection and Equivalence Committee has found the appellant’s  Diploma as the one satisfying the requirement of the advertisement. Once the Experts have taken a decision that the appellant meets the eligibility conditions of the advertisement, the Court could not have interfered with and set aside the appointment of the appellant.-Hon'ble Justices L.Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta [06-08-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/dr-sridip-chatterjee-vs-dr-gopa-chakraborty

SHASHI BHUSAN PRASAD V. INSPECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE & ORS.

The Hon’ble SC without interfering with the decision of the Orissa HC observed that Criminal and Departmental Proceedings are entirely different. In criminal law, burden of proof is on the prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, he cannot be convicted by a Court of law whereas in the departmental enquiry, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent on a finding recorded on the basis of ‘preponderance of probability’.- Hon'ble Justices N.V. Ramana,Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Ajay Rastogi [01-08-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/shashi-bhusan-prasad-vs-inspector-general-central-industrial-security-force-and-ors

CHILAKAMARTHI VENKATESWARLU & ANR. V. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.

SC- Affirming the decision of the Hyderabad HC which had refused to quash the criminal complaint, the Hon’ble SC observed that the power to quash the proceedings under Sec.482 of the CrPC can be done only in rare cases and is to be generally exercised when there is no material to proceed against the Petitioners even if the allegations in the complaint are prima facie accepted as true. This power should not be exercised to stifle legitimate prosecution. -Hon'ble Justices Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Indira Banerjee [31-07-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/chilakamarthi-venkateswarlu-and-anr-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-anr

VIJAY PANDEY V. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

SC-In a case relating to the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,the Hon’ble SC while acquitting the appellant opined that the mere production of a laboratory report that the sample tested was narcotics cannot be conclusive proof by itself. The sample seized and that tested have to be co-related. The failure of the prosecution in the present case to relate the seized sample with that seized from the appellant makes the case no different from failure to produce the seized sample itself.-Hon'ble Justices Ashok Bhushan and Navin Sinha[30-07-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/vijay-pandey-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh

ZENITH DRUGS & ALLIED AGENCIES PVT. LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SHRI UDAY KRISHNA PAUL V. M/S. NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD.

SC-Setting aside the Guwahati HC order,the Hon’ble SC held that the parties can be referred to arbitration in an application filed under Sec.8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act only if the subject matter of the action before the judicial authority relates to dispute which is the subject of the arbitration agreement. Since the respondent has raised the plea that the compromise decree is vitiated by fraud, the merits of such a plea could be decided only by the Civil Court and the parties cannot be referred to arbitration. Hon'ble Justices  R. Banumathi and A.S. Bopanna [30-07-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/zenith-drugs-and-allied-agencies-pvt-ltd-represented-by-its-managing-director,-shri-uday-krishna-paul-vs-ms-nicholas-piramal-india-ltd