AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD. V. K.S. INFRASPACE LLP

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD. V. K.S. INFRASPACE LLP

SC-Dismissing the appeal against the Gujarat HC,the Hon’ble SC observed that that in order to fall within Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act,2015 the immovable property must be “used exclusively” or “being used exclusively” in trade or commerce. There has been nothing on record to show that at the time when agreement to sell came to be executed in 2012, the property was being exclusively used in trade and commerce so as to bring the dispute within the ambit of sub-clause (vii) of Section 2(1)(c) of the Act. Merely because, the property is likely to be used in relation to trade and commerce, the same cannot be the ground to attract the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court.-Hon'ble Justices A.S.Bopanna and R.Banumthi [04-10-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)- https://www.legitquest.com/ambalal-sarabhai-enterprises-ltd-vs-ks-infraspace-llp

#saketagarwal

KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (M AND M) CORP LTD. V. P P SURESH AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (M AND M) CORP LTD. V. P P SURESH AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

SC- The Hon’ble SC while allowing the appeal against the Kerala HC judgment, held that the decision taken by the Govt. in overriding public interest was a measure to strike a balance between the competing interest of the displaced Abkari workers and unemployed youth in the State of Kerala. The impairment of the fundamental rights of the Respondents due to the change in policy was not excessive and it cannot be said that the change in policy regarding re-employment of displaced abkari workers is disproportionate. If an announcement is made by the Govt. of a policy conferring benefit on a large number of people, but subsequently, due to overriding public interest, the benefits announced earlier are withdrawn, it is not expedient to provide individual opportunities to such innominate number of persons.-Hon'ble Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta [04-10-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/kerala-state-beverages-(m-and-m)-corp-ltd-vs-p-p-suresh-and-ors-etc-etc

#saketagarwal

JANARDAN DAGDU KHOMANE V. EKNATH BHIKU YADAV .

*SC*-Affirming the decision of the *Bombay HC*, the Hon’ble SC opined that the Trust, being a *public trust*,was rightly registered on 8.8.1984 and so *cannot be questioned*. The respondents became *deemed purchasers* and the right under *Section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948* accrued to them on Tillers’ Day, that is, 1.4.1957. The respondents *cannot be divested of such right upon subsequent registration of the Trust*.A Trust for a religious purpose has the *right to own and acquire property, however, such property may be taken away by authority of law*.-Hon'ble Justices  R.Banumathi and Indira Banerjee[18-09-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)- https://www.legitquest.com/janardan-dagdu-khomane-vs-eknath-bhiku-yadav

#saketagarwal #plclaws

THE BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD V. RADHA BALLABH HEALTH CARE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE (P) LTD

SC-Setting aside the order of the Patna HC,the Hon’ble SC held that the appellant as a State is required to act fairly in fixation of price for allotment of a plot. The order of the HC to direct the appellant to charge the price proportionate to the price advertised earlier has no legal basis and is a commercial decision taken by the appellant fixing the price of the plot. In the matter of fixation of price, the Board has a right to fix such price, more so, when such price was accepted by the respondent on three different occasions.The action of the respondent to dispute the allotment price after accepting the price is neither fair nor reasonable and so, cannot be accepted.-Hon'ble Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta [13-09-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/the-bihar-state-housing-board-vs-radha-ballabh-health-care-and-research-institute-(p)-ltd

#saketagarwal

UNION OF INDIA V. SANDEEP KUMAR

SC-Finding that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction while setting aside the order of conviction passed by the DCM,the Hon’ble SC held that Section 15 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 confers wide power on the Tribunal so as to allow an appeal against conviction by a Court Martial where the finding of the Court Martial is legally not sustainable due to any reason; the finding involves wrong decision on a question of law or there was a material irregularity in the course of the trial resulting in miscarriage of justice but such wide powers do not confer jurisdiction to the Tribunal to reverse the findings merely because it finds that different view is possible.-Hon'ble Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta[13-09-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/union-of-india-vs-sandeep-kumar

#saketagarwal

BAJARANG SHYAMSUNDER AGARWAL V. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

BAJARANG SHYAMSUNDER AGARWAL V. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

SC- Ordering that the appellant-tenant shall hand over the possession of the secured asset within 12 weeks of this order to the Assistant Registrar, who in turn shall deliver the same to the respondent no.1-bank,the Hon’ble SC dismissed the Appeal. The bank has produced multiple records to substantiate that this tenancy was created just to defeat the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act and the appellant has failed to produce any evidence to substantiate his claim over the secured asset. So,the appellant cannot claim protection under the garb of the interim protection granted to him, ex parte, by solely relying upon the xerox of the rent receipts .Hence,the rejection of the stay application by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate cannot be held to be erroneous.-Hon'ble Justices N.V.Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Indira Banerjee [11-09-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/bajarang-shyamsunder-agarwal-vs-central-bank-of-india

#saketagarwal

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE I V. M/S MOTOROLA INDIA LTD.

SC-Remitting the matter back to the HC,the Hon’ble SC held that the Karnataka HC was not justified in holding that the appeals are not maintainable under Section 130 of the Customs Act but are tenable before this Court under Section 130E of the Customs Act. The only question is as to whether the assessee has breached the conditions which are imposed by the notification for getting exemption from payment of the customs duty or not. The appeals do not involve any question of law of general public importance which would be applicable to a class or category of assessees as a whole. The question is purely inter-se between the parties and is required to be adjudicated upon the facts available.-Hon'ble Justices Arun Mishra,M.R. Shah and B.R. Gavai [05-09-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/commissioner-of-customs,-bangalore-i-vs-ms-motorola-india-ltd

#saketagarwal

M/S GEO MILLER & CO.PVT.LTD. V. CHAIRMAN, RAJASTHAN VIDYUT UTPADAN NIGAM LTD

SC-The Hon’ble SC affirmed the view of the Rajasthan HC that the entire dispute seems concocted so as to pursue a monetary claim against the respondents, taking advantage of the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The appellant’s own default in sleeping over his right for 14 years will not constitute a case of ‘undue hardship’ justifying extension of time under Section 43(3) of the 1996 Act or show ‘sufficient cause’ for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The appellant should have approached the Court for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 8(2) of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 within the appropriate limitation period.-Hon'ble Justices N.V. Ramana,Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Ajay Rastogi [03-09-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/ms-geo-miller-and-copvtltd-vs-chairman,-rajasthan-vidyut-utpadan-nigam-ltd

M.J.THULSIRAMAN V. COMMR.

SC- The Hon’ble SC while dismissing the Appeal against the Madras HC held that the “Bakers Choultry”, and the rock inscription therein, constitute a “specific endowment” as defined under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, and the same is not the private property of the appellants. The contents of the rock inscription are sufficient to hold that there has been a valid divestment of the right to receive a certain part of the income, with the inscription also stipulating a bar on the right of the Manager to transfer the choultry.- Hon'ble Justices N.V. Ramana,Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Ajay Rastogi [03-09-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/mjthulsiraman-vs-commr

SEP. SATGUR SINGH V. UNION OF INDIA

SC-Without finding any error in the order of discharge of the Appellant and dismissing the Appeal, the Hon’ble SC opined that the parameters laid down in para 5(a) of the Army Instructions dated December 28, 1988 stand satisfied. The appellant has not given any explanation of his absence from duty on seven occasions. The Commanding Officer has recorded that the appellant is a habitual offender. As the absence of duty was on several different occasions for which he was imposed punishment of imprisonment, hence, the order of discharge cannot be said to be unjustified.-Hon'ble Justices L.Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta [02-09-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/sep-satgur-singh-vs-union-of-india

SYED ZAINUL ABEDEEN V. RAJASTHAN BOARD OF MUSLIM WAQF.

SC-Dismissing the appeal and without finding any manifest error with the observation of the Courts that the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Sec. 6 of the Wakf Act, 1954 was barred by limitation ,the Hon’ble SC held that once the property after the survey has been registered in the list of wakfs as Wakf-Al-Allah on the basis of the finding recorded by the Survey Commissioner in its report dated 2nd January, 1965, the dispute regarding the nature of wakfs registered is open to be examined only within the four corners of Sec. 6 of Act, 1954.The plea of the appellant that Sec. 6 has been erroneously referred to and the limitation has to be guided by Sec. 113 of the Limitation Act, is without substance and deserves rejection.-Hon'ble Justices N.V. Ramana and Ajay Rastogi [30-08-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/syed-zainul-abedeen-vs-rajasthan-board-of-muslim-waqf

EX.SEPOY (WASHERMAN) RAM KHILAWAN V. UNION OF INDIA

SC-The Hon’ble SC allowed the Appeal in a case challenging the orders passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal regarding the discharge of the Appellant from service. It held that the discharge is covered by clause (iii) of Rule 13(3)(III) of the Army Rules, 1954, as the discharge of the appellant was only on the ground of his medical unfitness for further service, therefore, he could not be invalidated out of service without the recommendation of the Invalidating Board. Such discharge which was not under the residual clause (v) but under clause (iii) of Rule 13(3)(III) of the Rules and which was made without reference to Invalidating Medical Board, is not legally sustainable.-Hon'ble Justices L.Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta [02-09-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/exsepoy-(washerman)-ram-khilawan-vs-union-of-india

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