STPL
The Law Website
Latest Reportable Judgment of Supreme Court of India Home
 
Latest Judgements, Updated On : Friday, August 22, 2014
Latest news updated here ....... .....
12345...>>
Date Case Detail
August 20,2014
Service Law – Appointment
2014 STPL(Web) 528 SC
Civil Appeal No.7839 of 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.9794 of 2013) with Civil Appeal No.7840 of 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.10809 of 2013)-Decided on 20-8-2014.
whereby the writ petition filed by Respondent Nos.1 to 3 was allowed quashing Notification inviting applications for appointment to the post of Attender/Peon and the appointments made pursuant thereto. …. We do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the High Court. Rule 182(5) of the Rules stipulates that “In respect of societies and posts not covered by section 80(3)(A) and Section 80B of the Act, the appointments shall be made by the Committee after conducting the written examination and interview as per the guidelines issued by the Registrar”…. We are also of the view that the Bank has failed to conduct written examination and interview as per the then existing guidelines issued by the Registrar of Co- operative Societies. Indisputably, the respondent writ petitioners moved the High Court challenging the circulars immediately after the notification and prior to the conduct of examination.
August 20,2014
Dishonour of Cheque – Territorial Jurisdiction
2014 STPL(Web) 527 SC
Criminal Appeal No. 1771 of 2014 [Arising out of SLP(Crl.)No. 7653 of 2013]-Decided on 20-8-2014.
It is no longer arguable that the issuance of the notice has relevance to the question of criminal territorial jurisdiction under Section 138 of the NI Act. In the case in hand, the dishonoured cheques were drawn on the Appellant’s Bank, namely, Axis Bank, Bangalore. Subsequently, on presentation of the cheques for encashment by the Respondent through its Bankers, namely, Standard Chartered Bank, Bangalore, they were dishonoured. …. we allow the Appeal, as Courts at Gurgaon do not possess territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act solely because, on the instructions of the Respondent, a legal notice of demand has emanated from that city. The Complaint be returned to the Complainant/Respondent for refilling in the appropriate Court at Bangalore, Karnataka. As mentioned in Dashrath Rupsingh, if the Complaint is re-filed in the appropriate Court in Bangalore within 30 days, it shall be deemed to have been filed within limitation. The interim orders stand recalled, accordingly.
August 14,2014
Service Law – Modification of Punishment by High Court
2014 STPL(Web) 526 SC
Civil Appeal No. 7717 of 2014 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 39113 of 2013)-Decided on 14-8-2014.
whereby the Division Bench of the High Court has modified the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority of appellant No.1, i.e. Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the 'LIC') on the respondent employee in a departmental enquiry. …. While intermeddling with this penalty, the only epithet used is “to secure the ends of justice”. In the absence of any exercise undertaken by the High Court that how it perceived such a penalty to be “harsh”, there was no reason to interfere with the same. Even otherwise, we do not find such a penalty at all to be shockingly disproportionate having regard to the very serious charge levelled against the respondent. …. there are consistent findings, not only of the departmental authorities, but even the Single Judge as also the Division Bench of the High Court to the effect that charges against the respondent stood established in the departmental enquiry….. As a result, the instant appeal is allowed. That part of the directions contained in para 62 of the impugned judgment which modifies the penalty are hereby set aside and the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority is hereby restored.
August 07,2014
Service Law – Reservation
2014 STPL(Web) 525 SC
Civil Appeal Nos. 10829-10830 of 2010-Decided on 7-8-2014.
Both Government Orders take note of the Constitution (Pondicherry) Scheduled Castes Order, 1964 and also the judgment of this Court in S. Pushpa and others Vs. Sivachanmugavelu and others[(2005) 3 SCC 1] and then provide for extension of reservation only to the Scheduled Castes origins of the Union Territory. …. It is important to bear in mind that it is by virtue of the notification of President under Article 341(1) that the Scheduled Castes come into being. The members of the Scheduled Castes are drawn from castes, races or tribes, they attain a new status by virtue of Presidential Order. Clause (2) of Article 341 empowers Parliament alone by law to include or exclude from the list of Scheduled Castes specified in a notification issued under Clause (1) by the President. By no executive power, the amendment, modification, alteration or variance in the Presidential Order is permissible. It is not open to the executive to do anything directly or indirectly which may lead to any change in the Presidential Order. Once Presidential Order has been issued under Article 341(1) or Article 342(1), any amendment in the Presidential Order can only be made by the Parliament by law as provided in Article 341(2) or Article 342(2), as the case may be, and in no other manner. The interpretation of “resident” in the Presidential Order as “of origin” amounts to altering the Presidential Order.
August 13,2014
Criminal Procedure – Cognizance after accepting negative report
2014 STPL(Web) 524 SC
Criminal Appeal No.1412 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP(CRL.) No.3308 of 2013)-Decided on 13-8-2014.
Whether a Magistrate after accepting a negative final report submitted by the Police can take action on the basis of the protest petition filed by the complainant/first informant? The above question having been answered in the affirmative by the Allahabad High Court, this appeal has been filed by the accused. …. On completion of investigation, the investigating officer submitted a final report to the court that no case is made out against the appellants and the other two accused and that they have been falsely implicated in the case. By order dated 26th November, 2002, the learned Magistrate accepted the final report but simultaneously directed that the case be proceeded with as a complaint case. The statements under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) were recorded and the accused were summoned by the learned trial court to face the trial. Against the aforesaid orders passed by the learned Magistrate, the present appellants moved the High Court of Allahabad raising the question noticed earlier. The High Court having answered the said question in the affirmative, this appeal has been filed. …. In the present case, the contention advanced on behalf of the accused pertained to the question of jurisdiction alone; it was urged that having accepted the final report the learned Magistrate had become “functus officio” and was denuded of all power to proceed in the matter. The above stand taken and the answer provided by the High Court would not require us to consider the circumstances in which the exercise of power was made. …. it has to be held that this appeal is without any merit or substance. It is accordingly dismissed.
August 13,2014
Arbitration – Appointment of arbitrator
2014 STPL(Web) 523 SC
Civil Appeal No.6275 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 20427 of 2013)-Decided on 13-8-2014.
It is in the totality of these facts that the High Court had thought it proper to travel beyond the framework of Clauses 64(3)(a)(ii) and (iii) of the General Conditions of Contract and appoint a retired Chief Justice as the arbitrator. …. In the present case Clauses 64(3)(a)(ii) and (iii) of the General Conditions of Contract do not prescribe any specific qualification of the arbitrators that are to be appointed under the agreement except that they should be railway officers. As already noticed, even if the arbitration agreement was to specifically provide for any particular qualification(s) of an arbitrator the same would not denude the power of the Court acting under Section 11(6), in an appropriate case to depart therefrom. …. The power of the Court under the Act has to be exercised to effectuate the remedy provided thereunder and to facilitate the mechanism contemplated therein. In a situation where the procedure and process under the Act has been rendered futile, the power of the Court to depart from the agreed terms of appointment of arbitrators must be acknowledged in the light of the several decisions noticed by us. We are, therefore, of the view that no infirmity muchless any illegality or failure of justice can be said to be occasioned by the order passed by the High Court so as to warrant any interference.
August 13,2014
Property Dispute
2014 STPL(Web) 522 SC
Civil Appeal No. 2147 of 2006-Decided on 13-8-2014.
The High Court, by the impugned order, has dismissed both the writ petitions filed by the appellant and has further held that the entitlement of the appellant to the reliefs claimed therein will have to be adjudicated in a suit for declaration of title…. The writ petition was disposed of by the Allahabad High Court on 06.07.1970 by holding that as highly disputed questions of fact relating to title had arisen such issues would not be appropriate for adjudication in the exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The parties, therefore, were relegated to the remedy of a civil suit. However, in the said proceeding an undertaking was made on behalf of the Union of India that the appellant would not be evicted from the property except in accordance with law. …. Having regard to the nature of the dispute and the highly contentious issue raised, if in view of the earlier order dated 06.07.1970 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.175 of 1969, the High Court had dismissed the Writ Petitions leaving it open for the appellant to avail the remedy of civil suit to get the title to the property adjudicated by a competent civil court, no fault, muchless any infirmity, can be found so as to warrant our interference. Accordingly, the civil appeal will have to be dismissed which we hereby do.
August 13,2014
Service Law – Seniority
2014 STPL(Web) 521 SC
Civil Appeal No. 7699 of 2014 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 29696 of 2013)-Decided on 13-8-2014.
whether acquisition of B.Ed. degree by respondent No.4 (who joined as Assistant Teacher after the appellant and was junior to her as Assistant Teacher) earlier in point of time than the appellant would tamper with the seniority of the appellant and steal a march over her? …. That apart, we find that in the case at hand there is a specific Rule, namely, Rule 12 of the Rules, which deals with seniority. The clear and unambiguous criteria for determining seniority is the continuous officiation counted from the date of acquiring the educational qualification as prescribed under Schedule “B”. It is stated at the cost of repetition that since the appellant was holding the requisite qualifications, i.e. D.Ed., for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary School, as prescribed under Schedule “B” to the Rules, her seniority was to be counted on the basis of continuous officiation. Since she joined the post of Assistant Teacher on 24.08.1979 and respondent No.4 came to be appointed subsequently, i.e. on 01.09.1980. The appellant would naturally be senior to respondent No.4. …. Insofar as manning the post of Head of the School is concerned, Rule 3 of the Rules provides for the qualifications. It is not in dispute that as on the date of which the Head of the School was to be appointed, the appellant fulfilled all the requisite qualifications mentioned in the said Rule. Further, as already found, she was senior to respondent No.4 as well. Therefore, it is the appellant who was the rightful claimant to the post of Head of the School. Depriving her of this legitimate right and making the appointment of respondent No.4 as the Head Master of the School was, therefore, clearly erroneous, which resulted in infringement of the rights of the appellant to hold that post.
August 13,2014
Service Law – Salary – Post
2014 STPL(Web) 520 SC
Civil Appeal No.7692 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5396 of 2013)-Decided on 13-8-2014.
the only issue that has to be decided in the present appeal is the entitlement of the appellant – A. Francis to salary in the higher post of Assistant Manager wherein he had worked from 28th February, 2001 till 31st May, 2005. …. the appellant was allowed to discharge duties in the post of Assistant Manager had made it clear that the appellant would not be entitled to claim any benefit therefrom including higher salary and further that he would continue to draw his salary in the post of Assistant Labour Welfare Officer. If the above was an express term of the order allowing him to discharge duties in the higher post, it is difficult to see as to how the said condition can be overlooked or ignored.
August 12,2014
NDPS – Applicability of Drug and Cosmetics Act, 1940
2014 STPL(Web) 519 SC
Criminal Appeal No. 660 of 2007 with Criminal Appeal No. 848 of 2011, Criminal Appeal No. 855 of 2011, Criminal Appeal No. 876 of 2011, Criminal Appeal No.1716 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 9374 of 2012) and Criminal Appeal No.1717 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 3558 of 2013)-Decided on 12-8-2014.
the legality of the conclusion recorded by the Bombay High Court that the absence of mention of a particular psychotropic substance in Schedule-I to the Rules excludes the application of Section 8, notwithstanding the fact that such a drug is included in the Schedule to the Act, is required to be decided. …. The Act does not contemplate framing of rules for prohibiting the various activities of DEALING IN narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. Such prohibition is already contained in Section 8(c). It only contemplates of the framing of Rules for permitting and regulating any activity of DEALING IN narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances. …. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the conclusion reached by the various High Courts that prohibition contained under Section 8 is not attracted in respect to all those psychotropic substances which find a mention in the Schedule to the Act but not in Schedule-I to the Rules framed under the Act is untenable. …. It is only required to be stated that essentially the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 deals with various operations of manufacture, sale, purchase etc. of drugs generally whereas Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 deals with a more specific class of drugs and, therefore, a special law on the subject. Further the provisions of the Act operate in addition to the provisions of 1940 Act.
August 11,2014
Dishonour of Cheque – Limitation – Quashing of complaint set aside
2014 STPL(Web) 518 SC
Criminal Appeal No. 1684 of 2014 (Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Crl) No. 8924 of 2013)-Decided on 11-8-2014.
The High Court expressed the view that the complaint was not filed within a period of one month after the expiry of 15 days of receipt of the notice dated 27th April, 2012 and hence it was barred by limitation under Section 142(b) of the Act and by the impugned judgment quashed the criminal proceedings against the respondent….. we are of the considered opinion that the High Court was not right in quashing the complaint merely on the ground that complaint is barred by limitation, that too a plea which was taken for the first time before the High Court. On the other hand, the High Court ought to have remanded the matter to the Trial Court for deciding the issue of limitation. …. At the same time, we want to make it very clear that by this observation we are not laying down a legal proposition that without even filing an application seeking condonation of delay at an initial stage, complainant can be given opportunity at any stage of the proceeding. As already discussed by us in the foregoing paragraphs, we have come to the irresistible conclusion, to afford an opportunity for the complainant to move an application seeking condonation of delay, under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. …. For all the aforesaid reasons, in order to meet the ends of justice, we exercise our discretion under Article 142 of the Constitution and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings and restore the criminal proceedings before the Trial Court. The appellant is permitted to file an application for condonation of delay before the Trial Court and if such an application is filed, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to consider the same on its own merits, without being impressed upon by any of the observations by this Court, and pass appropriate orders.
August 07,2014
Service Law – Switching over from PF to Pension scheme
2014 STPL(Web) 517 SC
Civil Appeal No. 7483-7496, 7498-7517, 7519-7523 and 7525-7573 of 2014-Decided on 7-8-2014.
whether the respondents were entitled, as of right, to one more opportunity to switch-over from the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme of which they were members, to the Pension Scheme and the General Provident Fund Scheme implemented by the appellant with effect from 28th November, 1988? Broadly speaking, the contention of the respondents is that they were unaware of the switch-over option since they were posted in remote areas of Rajasthan, while the contention of the appellant is that a large number of opportunities extending over 8 years were given to the respondents to exercise the switch-over option and that they could not claim any right to any further opportunity to make the switch over. …. the respondents who are members of the CPF Scheme were given several opportunities of switching over to the Pension Scheme and the GPF Scheme under the Pension Regulations and the GPF Regulations respectively but they chose not to do so. The question whether under these circumstances pension is a bounty or a charity becomes completely irrelevant. The entitlement to pension was available to the respondents but they chose not to avail the entitlement for reasons personal to them. Having taken a decision in this regard the respondents cannot now raise an argument of pension not being a bounty and therefore requiring the RSEB to give them another option to switch over to the Pension and GPF Regulations.
12345...>>
 
2010-2012 © STPL