STPL
The Law Website
Latest Reportable Judgment of Supreme Court of India Home
 
Latest Judgements, Updated On : Thursday, April 24, 2014
Latest news updated here ....... .....
12345...>>
Date Case Detail
April 22,2014
Road Safety – Monitoring committee constituted
2014 STPL(Web) 298 SC
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 295 of 2012-Decided on 22-4-2014.
the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking the Court’s intervention, primarily, in the matter of enforcement of the prevailing laws and also seeking directions for enactment of what the petitioner considers to be more appropriate legislative measures and for more affirmative administrative action. The petitioner also seeks directions from the Court for upliftment of the existing infrastructure and facilities with regard to post-accident care and management to minimize loss of life and physical injuries to victims of road accidents….. The sum total of the discussions above is that all existing laws and norms including the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, as in force, are required to be implemented in the right earnest and with all vigour by the authorities of the Union and the State Governments who are responsible for such implementation. In so far as suitable amendments to the laws are concerned, this Court can only hope and trust that all such changes or amendments which are presently under legislative consideration would be expedited and measures as may be considered necessary by legislature in its collective wisdom will be brought in the statute book in due course….. Keeping in mind that the time available to this Court is limited we deem it proper to constitute a Committee to undertake the process of monitoring on behalf of the Court. The Committee will have the following composition and shall function in the manner indicated below
April 22,2014
Murder – Conviction by High Court set aside
2014 STPL(Web) 297 SC
Criminal Appeal No.1424 of 2003 with Criminal Appeal No.15 of 2004-Decided on 22-4-2014.
It is also pertinent to note that while PW-13, the Head Constable stated that the injured were first taken to the village and then to the hospital, PW-28 S.I., P.S. Muppala stated that the injured were directly taken to the hospital. If, as stated by PW-13 the injured witnesses were first taken to the village and then to the hospital, then it is possible that after consultation with villagers they implicated the accused. This makes a dent in the prosecution story. …. Therefore, it cannot be said with certainty which accused attacked whom. Moreover, there are so many omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, that the entire fabric of prosecution case appears to be ridden with gaping holes. These discrepancies have been meticulously noted by the trial court….. The appellants in both the appeals are acquitted of all the charges.
April 22,2014
Compensation - res ipsa loquitur
2014 STPL(Web) 296 SC
Civil Appeal No. 4010 of 2010 with Civil Appeal Nos. 4011-4012 of 2010-Decided on 22-4-2014.
Adverting to the facts before him, the learned Judge took the view that it is evident that in the present case the plaintiff, who was suffering from high fever, had gone out for a stroll in the middle of the night being unable to sleep. His absence from the room on being noticed by his sister (PW-2) a search was organized and the plaintiff was found lying on the ground floor in the oncology gallery of the hospital with the injuries in question. On the said basis, the learned Trial Judge concluded that, in the present case, the hospital should be held liable for not maintaining the necessary vigil in the hospital premises to ensure the safety of its patients and it is on account of the absence of such vigil that the plaintiff, despite his poor health, was able to walk around and in the process had sustained the injuries in question. So far as the quantum of damages is concerned,…. we do not find any error in the application of the principle of res ipsa loquitur to the present case. In so far as the findings of negligence and absence of due care of the defendant is concerned, we are of the view that such findings being concurrent findings of fact the same ought not to be reopened by us in the appeal filed by the defendant-hospital under Article 136 of the Constitution.
April 22,2014
Municipality – Land for Road
2014 STPL(Web) 295 SC
Civil Appeal No. 4678 of 2014 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 12025 of 2006]-Decided on 22-4-2014.
As per the said Scheme, a part of the land covered by the Appellant's hotel was required for the construction/widening of the road….. However, from this the appellant cannot be allowed to contend that objections had not been decided. The at the most, issue of demarcation was to be settled as the appellant was raising this issue time and again….. we reject all the contentions of the appellant, at the same time we modify the order of the High Court to the extent that there shall be fresh demarcation done at the site through Patwari. On the basis of said demarcation, if it is found that in the revenue record 30 feet road exists, that area will be clearly demarcated and delineated, and thereafter the Scheme would be implemented. The aforesaid exercise shall be carried out within a period of two months from today. The appellant shall be associated in the exercise of demarcation. Once this demarcation, is done the parties shall abide by the same.
April 22,2014
Mining Lease – Maintainability of Writ
2014 STPL(Web) 294 SC
Conmt. Pet. (C) No. 374 of 2012 in C.A. No. 2790 of 2012 with W.P. (C) No. 60 of 2013, W.P. (C) No. 194 of 2013, W.P. (C) No. 837 of 2013 and I.A. No. 14 & I.A. NO. 2 in I.A. No. 14 in Civil Appeal No. 2790 of 2012-Decided on 22-4-2014.
we are constrained to hold that, on the basis of such an argument, they cannot approach this court directly under Article 32 of the Constitution by filing writ petitions. It has already been authoritatively determined that no fundamental right of the petitioners is violated. No fundamental right is violated by non-granting of mining lease. (See (2012) 11 SCC 1 and (1973) 1 SCC 584). …. Without going into all these issues, we dismiss these petitions giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the High Court in the first instance and/ or any other forum which is available, as per law. We make it clear that in so far as these petitions are concerned we have not dealt with the issues on merits. Wherever the petitions are filed, it would be open to the said forum to deal with the question as to whether the petitioners would be entitled to the benefit of judgment dated 14.3.2012 passed in the case of BPSL or not. All other issues are also kept open to be agitated in those proceedings.
April 22,2014
SARFAESI - Notice
2014 STPL(Web) 293 SC
Civil Appeal No. 4679 of 2014 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (CIVIL) No. 35168 of 2011] with C.A.No.4680/2014 (@ SLP(C) No. 6226 of 2012)-Decided on 22-4-2014.
the Division Bench has set aside the sale of the property in favour of the appellant. The reason given is that the public notice issued for the said sale was defective as 30 days time which is mandatorily required under Rules 8 and 9 of SARFAESI Act was not given….. whether there could be a waiver of the aforesaid mandatory condition? If so, whether this waiver can be discerned in the present case? …. The moment we find that the mandatory requirement of the Rules had not been waived by the borrower, consequences in law have to follow. As held in Mathew Varghese’s case, when there is a breach of the said mandatory requirement the sale is to be treated as null and void. Moreover, the appellant have no answer to many other infirmities pointed out by the High Court. We, therefore, are of the opinion that present appeals lack merit.
April 21,2014
Limitation - Service Law – Seniority
2014 STPL(Web) 292 SC
Civil Appeal No. 1322 of 2007-Decided on 21-4-2014.
The respondent kept on making representations one after another and all the representations had been rejected. Submission of the respondent to the effect that the period of limitation would commence from the date on which his last representation was rejected cannot be accepted. If accepted, it would be nothing but travesty of the law of limitation. One can go on making representations for 25 years and in that event one cannot say that the period of limitation would commence when the last representation was decided. On this legal issue, we feel that the courts below committed an error by considering the date of rejection of the last representation as the date on which the cause of action had arisen. This could not have been done.
April 21,2014
Dishonour of Cheque – Directions issued to Trial Courts
2014 STPL(Web) 291 SC
Writ Petition (Civil) No.18 of 2013-Decided on 21-4-2014.
Many of the directions given by the various High Courts, in our view, are worthy of emulation by the Criminal Courts all over the country dealing with cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, for which the following directions are being given
April 21,2014
Robbery – Conviction by High Court set aside
2014 STPL(Web) 290 SC
Criminal Appeal No.903 of 2014 (arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 6943/2011)-Decided on 21-4-2014.
There is another important aspect which cannot be lost sight of, namely as per PW-1 the faces of all the accused persons were covered with kerchief. It is not at all stated by any of the witnesses as to when these persons removed those kerchief and their faces became naked which could be seen by these witnesses. PW-1 was subsequently confronted with the statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. to this effect that in the cross- examination he accepted that he made the statement. Therefore, it was for him to clarify as to under what circumstances he could see the faces of A-1 and A-5 on the same ground how their faces could be seen by other witnesses, remains a mystery which is not explained by the prosecution. …. In this backdrop, the flaws in the investigation pointed out by the trial court become crucial. Curiously, High Court has not even adverted to those flaws….. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the judgment of the High Court holding the appellants guilty of the offence is unsustainable. The same is accordingly set aside. This appeal is allowed holding that charge against the appellants under Section 397 IPC read with Section 120-B has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
April 21,2014
Civil Procedure – Appeal decided on merit in absence of appellant
2014 STPL(Web) 289 SC
Civil Appeal No.4656 of 2014 (arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) No.5875/2007) with C.A. No.4657/2014 @ SLP(Civil) No.5874/2007, C.A.No.4658/2014 @ SLP(Civil) No.18141/2009, C.A.No.4659/2014 @ SLP(Civil) No.18142/2009-Decided on 21-4-2014.
The respondent was not satisfied with the aforesaid preliminary decree vide which she was held not entitled to any share in the Schedule A property. She, accordingly, filed the appeal against the said portion of the preliminary decree, before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Likewise, the appellant also filed appeal against other portion of the preliminary decree whereby the respondent was held entitled to half share in the Schedule B property. …. The plea of the appellants was that in the absence of their counsel, appeal filed by them could not have been decided on merits and the only course open to the Court was to dismiss the appeal in default, as that is the only permissible course of action provider in Order XLI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure in such an eventuality….. The learned senior counsel for the appellants did not even address on this aspect or argued that the reason given by the appellant in the application filed before the High Court for non-appearance amounted to sufficient cause and the order of the High Court is erroneous on this aspect. As a result, even if we treat the order of the High Court deciding the appeal of the appellants on merits was not proper and proceed further by substituting it with the order dismissing the said appeal in default, we do not find any reason to recall the order dismissing the appeal in default.
April 17,2014
Service Law – Re fixation of Pay
2014 STPL(Web) 288 SC
Civil Appeal No. 5262 of 2008-Decided on 17-4-2014.
After a few years of his retirement, it was found by the respondent- employer that salary of the appellant had been wrongly fixed in 1986 and therefore, his salary had been re-fixed by an order dated 23.03.2005. On the basis of the re-fixed salary a sum of Rs.99,522/- was sought to be recovered and for that purpose a notice had been issued to the appellant on 23.04.2005. In pursuance of the incorrect fixation of his salary in 1986, his salary at the time of his retirement had also been reduced from Rs.11625/- to Rs.10,975/- and therefore, his pension had also been reduced. …. Admittedly, if any mistake had been committed in pay fixation, the mistake had been committed in 1986, i.e. much prior to the retirement of the appellant and therefore, by virtue of the aforestated G.O. dated 16th January, 2007, neither any salary paid by mistake to the appellant could have been recovered nor pension of the appellant could have been reduced….. we quash and set aside the impugned judgment as well as the order dated 23.03.2005 whereby salary of the appellant was re-fixed and order dated 23.04.2005 whereby recovery of excess amount of Rs.99,522/- was ordered to be recovered from the appellant. The appellant shall be paid pension which had been determined at the time of his retirement, i.e. immediately after 31st December, 2003.
April 16,2014
Service Law – Date of Birth
2014 STPL(Web) 287 SC
Civil Appeal No.4558 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 22798 of 2013)-Decided on 16-4-2014.
The reason for this is clear that the respondent came out with a circular in 1987 that those employees who wished to change their date of birth in the records may do so by furnishing the necessary birth certificate and further, they can do it before they become 50 years of age. The appellant had not attained 50 years of age at the time he raised the contention regarding mistake in his date of birth….. since the services of the appellant were prematurely superannuated taking his date of birth as 27.06.1937 instead of 27.06.1940, and therefore, he is entitled to full back wages and other consequential monetary benefits from the date of termination till the date of his correct superannuation considering his date of birth as 27.06.1940.
12345...>>
 
2010-2012 © STPL