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