|
Updated On : Saturday, May 25, 2013
|
|
|
| May 09,2013
|
Oil exploration – Govt. approval upheld
2013 STPL(Web) 410 SC
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 69 of 2012-Decided on 9-5-2013.
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, questioned the decision of the Government of India in giving clearance to CAIRN-Vedanta deal, without ONGC exercising the RoFR, but for which it was submitted that the State Exchequer would have benefited to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- crore rupees. Learned counsel submitted that petrol and natural gas is held by the State in public interest and cannot be given away without due exercise of power and discretion guided by clear and cogent policy, because the natural resources should not be subject to private ownership or private commercial exploitation….. we find no merits in the writ petition which was filed without appreciating or understanding the scope of the decision or the making process concerning economic and commercial matters which gives liberty to States and its instrumentalities to take appropriate decision after weighing advantages and disadvantages of the same and this Court sitting in this jurisdiction, as already indicated, is not justified in interfering with those decisions, especially when there is nothing to show that those decisions are contrary to law or actuated to mala fide or irrelevant considerations. The writ petition, therefore, lacks merits. Hence, the same is dismissed.
|
|
| May 09,2013
|
Murder – Rape – Conviction upheld
2013 STPL(Web) 409 SC
Criminal Appeal No. 1450 of 2009-Decided on 9-5-2013.
As discussed earlier, the extra-judicial confession made to PW-2 has been rightly accepted by the trial Court as the same is within the parameters of law and withstood the test of reasonableness and credibility. An overall assessment of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses clearly establishes the circumstances against the accused in a cogent manner. It is seen from the evidence of PWs 2 & 3 that the appellant-accused had the motive, namely, he had a lustful eye towards his sister-in-law, which had been proved beyond doubt.
|
|
| May 09,2013
|
Bail – Corruption – Not granted
2013 STPL(Web) 408 SC
Criminal Appeal No. 728 of 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 9706 of 2012)-Decided on 9-5-2013.
whereby the High Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellant herein for grant of bail. …. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offence having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country….. Taking note of all these aspects, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and also with regard to the claim of the CBI and the defence, we are of the opinion that the appellant cannot be released at this stage,
|
|
| May 09,2013
|
Bail – Corruption – Cancelled
2013 STPL(Web) 407 SC
Criminal Appeal No. 729 of 2013 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5946 of 2012)-Decided on 9-5-2013.
We have highlighted the above aspects to show that the High Court has mistakenly taken into account the irrelevant materials and kept out the relevant materials, which had to be considered for the grant of bail. …. Taking note of the fact that cancellation of bail necessarily involves the review of a decision already made, it should always be exercised very sparingly by the court of law. …. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the view that the special Judge committed an error in granting bail and the same was erroneously affirmed by the High Court.
|
|
| May 09,2013
|
Bail – Corruption – Not granted
2013 STPL(Web) 406 SC
Criminal Appeal No. 730 of 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3404 of 2013)-Decided on 9-5-2013.
Taking note of all these facts and the huge magnitude of the case and also the request of the CBI asking for further time for completion of the investigation in filing the charge sheet(s), without expressing any opinion on the merits, we are of the opinion that the release of the appellant at this stage may hamper the investigation. However, we direct the CBI to complete the investigation and file the charge sheet(s) within a period of 4 months from today. Thereafter, as observed in the earlier order dated 05.10.2012, the appellant is free to renew his prayer for bail before the trial Court and if any such petition is filed, the trial Court is free to consider the prayer for bail independently on its own merits without being influenced by dismissal of the present appeal.
|
|
| May 09,2013
|
Quashing of Criminal Complaint – Abuse of process of court – Quashed
2013 STPL(Web) 405 SC
Civil Appeal No. 4537-4538 & 4540 of 2013 with Criminal Appeal Nos. 731-737 of 2013 and Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 166 of 2013 in S.L.P.(CRL.) No. 9853 of 2010-Decided on 9-5-2013.
The High Court while passing the order observed that the Court would frown upon the conduct of the complainant in indulging in repeated harassment of the petitioners-appellants….. Neither the High Court nor the Magisterial Court have ever applied their mind and considered the conduct of the respondent and continuance of criminal proceedings in respect of the disputes, which are civil in nature and finally adjudicated by the competent authority i.e. the Company Law Board and the High Court in appeal. …. We are of the definite opinion that the complainant has manipulated and misused the process of Court so as to deprive the appellants from their basic right to move free anywhere inside or outside the country. Moreover, it would be unfair if the appellants are to be tried in such criminal proceedings arising out of alleged breach of a Joint Venture Agreement specially when such disputes have been finally resolved by the Court of competent jurisdiction. Hence, allowing the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.7 of 2007 to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court and, therefore, for the ends of justice such proceedings ought to be quashed.
|
|
| May 09,2013
|
Eviction – Partial Eviction
2013 STPL(Web) 404 SC
Civil Appeal No. 4539 of 2013 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.30300 of 2011)-Decided on 9-5-2013.
whereby the second appeal filed by the defendant-respondents was allowed, the judgments and decrees of the courts below were set aside and the matter was remitted to the trial court after expressing the view that considering the provisions of Section 13(4) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 it is a duty cast upon the Court to consider whether the requirement of the plaintiff could be satisfied by evicting the defendant from a part only of the suit property, plaintiff-appellant has preferred this appeal by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The trial court and the first appellate court had passed decree for eviction against the defendant/tenant in respect of the entire suit premises in question. …. Taking into consideration these facts and also having regard to the finding recorded both by the trial court and the appellate court after discussing the question of partial eviction, the substantial question of law framed by the High Court does not arise. Consequently, the impugned judgment passed by the High Court cannot be sustained in law.
|
|
| May 08,2013
|
Specific Performance – Agreement to sell at market price
2013 STPL(Web) 403 SC
I.A. Nos. 3-5 & I.A. D.No. 37212 of 2013 in Civil Appeal No. 8653 of 2012 with I.A. NOS. 12-13 & 14-15 OF 2013 in Civil Appeal Nos. 8675-8676 of 2012-Decided on 8-5-2013.
We are of the further view that the sale deed that will now have to be executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiffs will be for the market price of the suit property as on the date of the present order. As No material, whatsoever is available to enable us to make a correct assessment of the market value of the suit property as on date we request the learned trial judge of the High Court of Delhi to undertake the said exercise with such expedition as may be possible in the prevailing facts and circumstances….. I.A. Nos. 3-5, 12-13, 14-15 and D.No. 37212 of 2013 have been filed seeking impleadment/clarification/modification/ correction of the judgment dated 3.12.2012, in the circumstances noted below.
|
|
| May 07,2013
|
Labour Law – Liquidation of Company – Claims of workmen by Liquidator and not by DRT
2013 STPL(Web) 402 SC
Civil Appeal No. 7045 of 2005 with Civil Appeal No. 7046 of 2005-Decided on 7-5-2013.
whether the claims of the workmen who claimed to be entitled to payment pari passu have to be considered by the official liquidator or whether their claims have to be adjudicated upon by the Debts Recovery Tribunal…. we hold, as it must be held, that the claims of the workmen who claim to be entitled to payment pari passu have to be considered and adjudicated by the liquidator of the debtor company and not by the DRT. We answer the question accordingly.
|
|
| May 07,2013
|
Murder – Conviction/Acquittal
2013 STPL(Web) 401 SC
Criminal Appeal No.2036 of 2009-Decided on 7-5-2013.
It is evident from the above that the Appellant no.16- Monglu’s presence on the spot and participation in the commission of the offence is proved by the evidence led by the prosecution and supported by his own statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. That is not, however, true about the remaining two appellants namely, Hafijuddin and Motilal who were neither named in the FIR nor is there any cogent evidence to suggest their complicity or participation in the commission of the offence. In the circumstances, therefore, while appeal filed by Monglu shall have to be dismissed, that filed by Hafijuddin and Motilal shall have to be allowed giving to the said two appellants also the benefit of doubt.
|
|
| May 07,2013
|
Service Law – Integration of one cadre upon other
2013 STPL(Web) 400 SC
Civil Appeal Nos. 4483-4504 of 2013 with Contempt Petition (C) No. 133 of 2012 in Civil Appeal No. 4498 of 2013 [Arising out of SLP (C) No.2194 of 2011] with Contempt Petition (C) No. 145 of 2012 in Civil Appeal No.4492 of 2013 [Arising out of SLP (C) NO.4572 of 2011]-Decided on 7-5-2013.
The inter se dispute between the parties in the present appeals originated when the fact of successful eradication of leprosy by the National Leprosy Eradication Programme (NLEP) led to the integration of the employees working in the said Scheme into the Multipurpose Health Workers Scheme….. The High Court has correctly observed that upon integration and merger into one cadre, the pre- existing length of service of the Leprosy Inspectors re-designated as Health Inspector Grade IB had to be protected as it can not be obliterated. Therefore, the Leprosy Inspectors have been correctly placed at the bottom of the seniority list of the already existing Health Inspectors Grade I w.e.f. 27th June, 1997. Therefore, it can not be said that benefit has been given to the Leprosy Inspectors /Health Inspector Grade IB /Health Inspector Grade I with retrospective effect.
|
|
| May 01,2013
|
Foreign Direct Investment – Writ against dismissed.
2013 STPL(Web) 399 SC
Writ Petition (C) No. 417 of 2012-Decided on 1-5-2013.
In the Writ Petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing Press Note Nos. 4,5,6,7 and 8 of (2012 Series) dated 20th September, 2012 being unconstitutional and without any authority of law. …. By these Press Notes, the policy of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in Single-Brand Product Retail Trading, Multi-Brand Retail Trading, Air Transport Services, Broadcasting Carriage Services and Power Exchanges has been reviewed. In the forwarding circular, it is mentioned in para 5 that necessary amendments to Foreign Exchange Management (Transfer or Issue of Security by a Person Resident Outside India) Regulations, 2000 (for short “Regulations, 2000) are being notified separately….. On matters affecting policy, this Court does not interfere unless the policy is unconstitutional or contrary to the statutory provisions or arbitrary or irrational or in abuse of power. The impugned policy that allows FDI up to 51% in Multi-Brand Retail Trading does not appear to suffer from any of these vices….. Writ Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
|
|
|
|