The Law Website
Latest Reportable Judgment of Supreme Court of India Home
Latest Judgements, Updated On : Tuesday, September 2, 2014
Latest news updated here ....... .....
Date Case Detail
September 01,2014
Arbitration - Award
2014 STPL(Web) 552 SC
Civil Appeal No. 8373 of 2014 [Arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.35021 of 2013]-Decided on 1-9-2014.
According to learned senior counsel for the appellant, the Division Bench has wrongly reversed the order of learned Single Judge on the issue of crane hire charges inasmuch as the claim of the appellant asking for payment of crane hire charges by the respondent for Unit III was based upon clause 12.2.2 of the Work Order read with clauses 2.8.11, 3.38.3 and 3.38.14 of the Agreement/Tender Document. …. the extracts from the Tender Document contain a clear stipulation for recovery of such charges from the contractor’s bill/security deposit in one instalment. On going through the order under appeal, we find that the learned Division Bench has not kept in mind the aforesaid provisions in the Work Order and the Tender Document. …. In such circumstances, we find that the crane hire charges claimed by the appellant were wrongly disallowed by the order under appeal passed by the Division Bench. As a result, it is held that appellant is entitled for crane hire charges and, therefore, that amount needs to be deducted from the amount payable to the respondent under the Award on other heads. It is also held that the appellant is not liable to pay any pre-Award interest and the interest @ 10.5% p.a. shall be payable by the appellant only from the date of Award till the date of payment on the Award amount now found payable, if any.
August 26,2014
Quashing of Complaint – Set aside
2014 STPL(Web) 551 SC
Criminal Appeal No.1838 of 2014 [Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.4540 of 2013]-Decided on 26-8-2014.
High Court quashed the proceedings in the abovementioned criminal case on the file of the trial Court….. The basic facts that the appellant withdrew money from the bank, went to the house of the respondents accompanied by the first respondent and left the money in the car of the first respondent do not appear to be in dispute. On the other hand, from the impugned judgment it appears that the argument before the High Court was that the offences under Section 406 and 420 IPC are not made out on the facts alleged in the FIR….. The fact remains that the appellant lost money which was kept in the car of the first respondent. Even according to the High Court, the case would fall under Section 379 IPC. The High Court, in our opinion, grossly erred in quashing the proceedings against the respondents with a certificate that it is one of the rarest cases where the court is required to quash the proceedings. …. Whether the respondents are guilty under Section 379 IPC or not is a matter of evidence. The fact that the police chose to file a chargesheet under Section 406 and 420 IPC is not conclusive regarding the offences for which the respondents-accused are to be tried. The trial Court can always frame an appropriate charge if there is sufficient material from the report of the police available before it. In case where the material is insufficient to frame a charge, the trial Court may either discharge the accused or may direct further investigation in the matter….. We, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order.
August 27,2014
Civil Procedure – Additional evidence
2014 STPL(Web) 550 SC
Civil Appeal No. 8283 of 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 18676 of 2012)-Decided on 27-8-2014.
In the instant case, the documents which are sought to be filed before the appellate court as additional evidence are bank accounts which really are not clinching to put the controversy. …. we are of the considered opinion that the appellate court has erred in taking recourse to the said clause and allowing the application for taking additional evidence and similarly the High Court has committed illegality opining that the order passed by the lower appellate court does not suffer from any infirmity. Be it stated, the learned counsel has referred to certain authorities which pertain to scope of Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC, but they are distinguishable on facts as they relate to due diligency, relevancy of documents and the requisite approach. We have already opined that the documents are not so clinching to be accepted as additional evidence in exercise of jurisdiction under Order XLI Rule 27(1)(b),
August 20,2014
Corruption – Conviction by High Court set aside.
2014 STPL(Web) 549 SC
Criminal Appeal No.920 of 2011-Decided on 20-8-2014.
whereby the High Court reversed the order of acquittal dated 11.03.1999 recorded by the Trial Court in C.C No. 19 of 1993 and convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988…. Therefore, neither acceptance nor recovery of illegal gratification from the appellant is proved….. held that the demand, acceptance and recovery of gratification from the appellant is not proved, therefore there is no presumption under Section 20 of the Act. The learned trial judge in his judgment has rightly held that presumption of innocence is in favour of the appellant and he was acquitted on merits. …. we are of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the appellant from the complainant PW-2, upon whose evidence much reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the respondent.
August 20,2014
Specific Performance – Agreement to sell
2014 STPL(Web) 548 SC
Civil Appeal No. 7835 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP(C) NO. 24653 of 2012)-Decided on 20-8-2014.
The Trial Court further held that the Agreement of Sale was not valid as the defendant Nos.3 to 6 and their mother did not give consent to sell the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the main relief for specific performance was rejected and the defendants were directed to refund the amount of advance sale consideration to the plaintiffs with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. …. It is an undisputed fact that the plaintiffs have not approached the Trial Court with clean hands. It is evident from the pleadings of the Agreement of Sale which is produced for the decree for specific performance of Agreement of Sale as the plaintiffs did not obtain the signatures of all the co-sharers of the property namely, the mother of the defendants, the third brother and 3 sisters. Therefore, the agreement is not enforceable in law as the persons who have executed the sale deed, did not have the absolute title of the property. Apart from the said legal lacuna, the terms and conditions of the Agreement of Sale for payment of sale consideration agreed to be paid by the first plaintiff in installments within the period stipulated as indicated above were not paid. …. The judgment and decree of the Trial Court is restored with modification that the defendants shall pay a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- to the plaintiffs as lump-sum compensation within 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
August 20,2014
MACT – Compensation
2014 STPL(Web) 547 SC
Civil Appeal No.7158 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP(C) NO. 4333 of 2014)-Decided on 20-8-2014.
whereby the High Court reduced the compensation awarded at Rs.37,33,248/- by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and re-determined at Rs.15,84,750/-. …. the High Court has erred in not considering the principles laid down in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. (supra) in so far as deduction of 1/4th of the monthly income of the deceased to arrive at the multiplicand and reducing the compensation by adopting the split up multiplier. Further, recording the finding of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in the absence of evidence on record in this regard rendered the finding erroneous in law …. Further, deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased out of the annual income would be 1/4th as held by this Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors….. The High Court failed to follow the above judgement and committed an error in law in deducting 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses of the deceased….. Further, the High Court has erred in not following the decision of Rajesh and Ors. v. Rajbir Singh and Ors.[(2013) 9 SCC 54] by awarding only Rs.10,000/- for loss of consortium, instead of Rs.1,00,000/-. Towards loss of estate, the High Court awarded Rs.10,000/- instead of Rs.1,00,000/. …. In the result, the impugned judgment and order of the High Court is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside and the Award of the Tribunal is affirmed. Therefore, the appellants shall be entitled to compensation under the following heads: Loss of Dependency Rs.36,58,248/- Funeral Expenses Rs. 5,000/- Loss of love and affection Rs. 50,000/- Loss of estate Rs. 10,000/- Loss of consortium Rs. 10,000/- Total: Rs.37,33,248/-
August 29,2014
Election Petition – Cause of action
2014 STPL(Web) 546 SC
Civil Appeal Nos. 69-70 of 2012-Decided on 29-8-2014.
whether the averments in the election petition disclose a cause of action as required under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’). Incidentally, it may be noted that the election petition has been dismissed…. Holding an office of profit under the Government of India or Government of any State is the disqualification. Whether that ground is discernible if the election petition is read as a whole, is the simple exercise to be undertaken by the High Court, when called upon to do so under Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC….. The question whether a schedule or annexures to the election petition is an integral part of the election petition…. All the annexures attached to the election petition in the present case have been signed and verified by the election petitioner as per the requirement under Section 83(2) of the RP Act, as can be seen from Annexure- P1(Colly). Therefore, Annexure-P1(d) to the election petition (Annexure-D herein) forms an integral part of the election petition. There is a clear and unambiguous plea that the respondent was holding the post of Kerala State Wakf Board, holding an office of profit under the Government of Kerala and, hence, he was disqualified….. we are of the view that the election petition having disclosed a cause of action, it should not have been thrown out at the threshold. The impugned order and judgment are hence set aside. The appeals are allowed. The election petition is remitted to the High Court for trial in accordance with law.
August 27,2014
Rent – Revisional Powers of High Courts
2014 STPL(Web) 545 SC
Civil Appeal No.6177 of 2004 with Civil Appeal No.2162 of 2004-Decided on 27-8-2014.
while dealing with the meaning, ambit and scope of the words “legality and propriety” under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short, ‘the Haryana Rent Control Act’), was confronted with the question whether the High Court (as revisional authority) under Section 15(6) could interfere with the findings of fact of the first appellate Court/first appellate authority….. We hold, as we must, that none of the above Rent Control Acts entitles the High Court to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court/First Appellate Authority because on re- appreciation of the evidence, its view is different from the Court/Authority below. The consideration or examination of the evidence by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction under these Acts is confined to find out that finding of facts recorded by the Court/Authority below is according to law and does not suffer from any error of law. A finding of fact recorded by Court/Authority below, if perverse or has been arrived at without consideration of the material evidence or such finding is based on no evidence or misreading of the evidence or is grossly erroneous that, if allowed to stand, it would result in gross miscarriage of justice, is open to correction because it is not treated as a finding according to law.
August 26,2014
Furnishing false information – Conviction upheld
2014 STPL(Web) 544 SC
Criminal Appeal No. 1837 of 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 2331/2014)-Decided on 26-8-2014.
The appellant being a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat was legally bound to give correct information and bound to issue a correct certificate. Though Lal Chand owned 13 kanals 13 marlas and his wife also owned lands in village Baruhi, the appellant issued false certificate in favour of Lal Chand that he does not own any land except the land which he has made fit for cultivation and thus furnished the information which he knew to be false. Based on the revenue records, the trial court recorded factual findings that Lal Chand and his wife totally owned 83 kanals 14 marlas of land. The appellant knowingly issued the false certificate in favour of Lal Chand containing false information and the ingredients of Section 177 IPC are proved and we find no reason to interfere with the conviction of the appellant under Section 177 IPC. …. There is no evidence to show that there was such fraudulent dishonest intention on the part of the appellant in issuing certificate in favour of Lal Chand. Issuance of false certificate cannot be said to be with dishonest intention to make wrongful gain for himself. Since the ingredients of Section 420 IPC are not proved, the conviction of the appellant under Section 420 IPC, cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. …. The appellant is said to have already undergone the sentence for a period of 51/2 months. For the conviction under Section 177 IPC, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellant is modified to the period already undergone.
August 27,2014
Minister with Criminal Charges
2014 STPL(Web) 543 SC
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 289 of 2005-Decided on 27-8-2014.
the present writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution was filed by the petitioner as pro bono publico assailing the appointment of some of the original respondents as Ministers to the Council of Ministers of Union of India despite their involvement in serious and heinous crimes….. Thus, while interpreting Article 75(1), definitely a disqualification cannot be added. However, it can always be legitimately expected, regard being had to the role of a Minister in the Council of Ministers and keeping in view the sanctity of oath he takes, the Prime Minister, while living up to the trust reposed in him, would consider not choosing a person with criminal antecedents against whom charges have been framed for heinous or serious criminal offences or charges of corruption to become a Minister of the Council of Ministers….. Despite the fact that certain limitations can be read into the Constitution and have been read in the past, the issue of the appointment of a suitable person as a Minister is not one which enables this Court to read implied limitations in the Constitution. …. To quote Dr. Ambedkar: “However, good a Constitution may be, it is sure to turn out bad because those who are called to work it happen to be a bad lot. However, bad a Constitution may be, it may turn out to be good if those who are called to work it happen to be a good lot. The working of a Constitution does not depend wholly upon the nature of the Constitution….. Fortunately for us, our Constitution has stood the test of time and is acclaimed to be one of the best in the world. Problem has been with the other part, though sporadically….. and conscientiously, will be well advised to consider avoiding any person in the Council of Ministers, against whom charges have been framed by a criminal court in respect of offences involving moral turpitude and also offences specifically referred to in Chapter III of The Representation of the People Act, 1951.
August 26,2014
Labour Law – Abolition of Contract Labour
2014 STPL(Web) 542 SC
Civil Appeal No.8151 of 2014 (arising out of SLP(C) No.822 of 2013) with Civil Appeal No.8152 of 2014 (@)S.L.P(C) No.23088 of 2014 @ SLP(C) CC No. 4627/2013)-Decided on 26-8-2014.
In the said case similar question regarding implementation of the recommendation of the State Advisory Contract Labour Board was considered. In the said case also, the appellant-Company neither contended nor raised the question that the State Government is not the appropriate government….. Now once the Notification dated 28th April, 2000 for abolition of contract labour in respect of the workers in DAP Plant –Cleaning of granulation dry section, cleaning in combustion chamber, etc. was issued, it was incumbent on the part of the Company to implement the same. Since it was not implemented, the High Court rightly directed to implement the same. …. while we are not inclined to answer the question about the appropriate government in the present case, keep the same open for determination in an appropriate case. We find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order by which the High Court directed the appellant to implement the notification abolishing the contract labour and to regularize the service of the workmen.
August 26,2014
Arbitration – Award
2014 STPL(Web) 541 SC
Civil Appeal Nos. 7128-7129 of 2011-Decided on 26-8-2014.
In our opinion, the scope of interference of the Court is very limited. Court would not be justified in reappraising the material on record and substituting its own view in place of the Arbitrator’s view. Where there is an error apparent on the face of the record or the Arbitrator has not followed the statutory legal position, then and then only it would be justified in interfering with the award published by the Arbitrator. Once the Arbitrator has applied his mind to the matter before him, the Court cannot reappraise the matter as if it were an appeal and even if two views are possible, the view taken by the Arbitrator would prevail. …. We have also perused the clauses of the said Agreement, in particular clauses 3 & 5 of the Agreement. We find that the reasoning given by the Division Bench of the High Court cannot be said to be perverse. Furthermore, the appellant never terminated the Agreement or requested the first respondent to take back the machinery. Now, at this stage it would not be proper for us to express further opinion in the matter when the matter/dispute has already been concluded by the Arbitrator and the award has been affirmed by the High Court.
2010-2012 © STPL