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

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