The Law Website
Latest Reportable Judgment of Supreme Court of India Home
Latest Judgements, Updated On : Thursday, April 24, 2014
Latest news updated here ....... .....
Date Case Detail
April 23,2014
Constitutional Law - Government advertising as de facto political advertising
2014 STPL(Web) 304 SC
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13 of 2003 with Writ Petition (Civil) No. 197 of 2004-Decided on 23-4-2014.
These writ petitions are filed in public interest, under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, to throw light on the enduring issue of use of publicly funded government advertising campaigns as de facto political advertising canvass which is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. …. Keeping in mind that the time available to this Court is limited and the subject matter for which guidelines are to be framed is sensational and significant, we deem it proper to constitute a Committee consisting of three members to undertake the task of suggesting guidelines to this Court after an intricate study of all the best practices in public advertisements in different jurisdictions and to submit the same before this Court preferably within a period of three months.
April 23,2014
Civil Procedure – Second appeal - Substantial question of law
2014 STPL(Web) 303 SC
Civil Appeal No. 4805 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.12773 of 2009)-Decided on 23-4-2014.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the High Court in second appeal suffers from patent errors, both in law and in fact. It was submitted that the High Court did not frame the substantial question of law at the time of admission of the second appeal but formulated a question only in the impugned judgment after the arguments had been concluded….. In the present case it is true that the substantial question of law was formulated by the High Court, though not at the admission stage but at a later stage before the hearing, it does not follow that merely because the “substantial question of law” was formulated by the High Court at a later stage, the judgment of the High Court becomes a nullity, liable to be set aside by this Court on that ground alone and for the same the appellants before us must also show prejudice to them on this account. …. In the instant case, we have noticed that substantial question of law was framed by the High Court before the hearing took place and the appellants were put on notice and after giving an opportunity to the appellants to meet the question, second appeal was decided by the High Court. Therefore, in our opinion no prejudice has been caused to the appellants.
April 22,2014
Land Dispute
2014 STPL(Web) 302 SC
Civil Appeal No.1918 of 2007-Decided on 22-4-2014.
In our considered viewpoint, the High Court has committed a grave error in procedure by not framing substantial question of law and setting aside the judgment and decree of the first appellate court. …. Therefore, since the present case too involves a question of ‘sonship’ of the plaintiff who is the appellant herein, there is no bar to the jurisdiction of civil courts under Section 49 of the aforesaid Act, in deciding the question of the appellant’s right to the land he has inherited from his father. …. The Consolidation officer without examining the alleged statement made on behalf of the appellant and verifying the correctness of the same has accepted the withdrawal of his objection and has passed the order without examining the rights of the parties with reference to the documents in relation to the suit schedule property….. We therefore hereby declare the order of the Consolidation Officer to be null and void on grounds of patent illegality and acting with legal malice….. we hold that the appellant is the half share owner of the land in question and further uphold his right to the ancestral property. We direct the competent authority to record the name of the appellant – Amar Nath in the revenue records as half share owner of the land in dispute.
April 22,2014
MACT – Compensation
2014 STPL(Web) 301 SC
Civil Appeal No. 3461 of 2003-Decided on 22-4-2014.
It is pertinent to note that the only available documentary evidence on record of the monthly income of the deceased is the income tax return filed by him with the Income Tax Department. …. the High Court erred in making deductions under various heads to arrive at the net income instead of ascertaining the gross income of the deceased out of the annual income earned from his occupation mentioned in the income tax return submitted for the relevant financial year 1994-1995. …. Also, since the deceased was 46 years of age at the time of the accident, a multiplier of 13 seems appropriate for determining the quantum of compensation…. Apart from this, we award Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of expectation of the life of the deceased. We also award a sum of Rs.50,000/- for funeral expenses and cost of litigation. Therefore, a total sum of Rs.14,51,016/- which is rounded off at Rs.14,51,000/- is awarded to the appellants-claimants.
April 22,2014
2014 STPL(Web) 300 SC
Civil Appeal No.4681 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 25020 of 2009)-Decided on 22-4-2014.
we hold that the respondent- Corporation, being an instrumentality of the State has acted unfairly in the present case in cancelling the selection of the appellant for the retail outlet dealership in question and not issuing the letter of intent to her. The appellant has competed for the appointment and was selected fairly after satisfying the requirements. Therefore, we direct the respondents to restore the appointment to the appellant within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The appeal is accordingly allowed on the above terms with no order as to costs.
April 21,2014
Marriage - Valid marriage
2014 STPL(Web) 299 SC
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 3390 of 2014 (Crl M.P. No.6817 of 2014)-Decided on 21-4-2014.
the observations made by the High Court that “a valid marriage does not necessarily mean that all the customary rights pertaining to the married couple are to be followed and subsequently solemnized” are not legally tenable. It has been pointed out by Mr. Calla, learned senior counsel that such observations demolish the very institution of marriage itself, and therefore, are liable to be set aside. …. made the aforesaid observations in the facts of that case as the alleged marriage took place in 1994 and two children were born in 1996 and 1999 respectively. Therefore, the observations made by the High Court in the said judgment are restricted to the facts of that case and do not lay down the law of universal application. In view of the above, we do not deem it necessary to consider the case any further.
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
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.
2010-2012 © STPL