STPL
The Law Website
Latest Reportable Judgment of Supreme Court of India Home
 
Latest Judgements, Updated On : Monday, July 28, 2014
Latest news updated here ....... .....
12345...>>
Date Case Detail
July 08,2014
Constitutional Law – Difference between decisions under Article 136 & Article 142
2014 STPL(Web) 495 SC
Special Leave Petition (C) No.11684 of 2012 with Special Leave Petition No.....CC No. 14663 of 2010, Special Leave Petition (C) No. 21554 of 2013, Special Leave Petition No.....CC No. 20144 of 2010, Special Leave Petition No.....CC No. 9303 of 2011 and Special Leave Petition (C) NO. 21492 of 2013-Decided on 8-7-2014.
whether the Government is entitled to recover from an employee any payment made in excess of what the employee is otherwise entitled to, in the absence of any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the employee….. In our considered view, the observations made by the Court not to recover the excess amount paid to the appellant-therein were in exercise of its extra-ordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India which vest the power in this Court to pass equitable orders in the ends of justice. …. In those decisions, directions were issued in exercise of the powers of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, but in the subsequent decision this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution, in laying down the law had dismissed the petition of the employee. …. Article 142 of the Constitution of India is supplementary in nature and cannot supplant the substantive provisions, though they are not limited by the substantive provisions in the statute. It is a power that gives preference to equity over law. It is a justice oriented approach as against the strict rigors of the law. The directions issued by the court can normally be categorized into one, in the nature of moulding of relief and the other, as the declaration of law….. the decisions of the Court based on different scales of Article 136 and Article 142 of the Constitution of India cannot be best weighed on the same grounds of reasoning and
July 25,2014
Corruption – Conviction by High Court set aside
2014 STPL(Web) 494 SC
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1564 of 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.6386 of 2012)-Decided on 25-7-2014.
According to the learned counsel the investigation was done by the police officer who was not an authorized officer in terms of Section 17 of the Act and thereby the entire investigation is vitiated in law. The High Court also erroneously drawn presumption under Section 20 of the said Act when the prosecution miserably failed to prove the demand or offer of any gratification. Learned counsel further submitted that the presumption as contemplated under Section 20(2) of the Act can be made applicable only when the public servant accepted the illegal gratification. Learned counsel submitted that all witnesses examined by the prosecution are subordinates of the complainant and no independent witness was examined to prove the charges. It was further contended that charge was framed by the Trial Court for the admitted bribe to the complainant for awarding the supply order of double decker beds, but as a matter of fact no such supply order was processed anywhere.
July 25,2014
Transfer of Property - Transfer by unauthorised person who subsequently acquires interest in property transferred
2014 STPL(Web) 493 SC
Civil Appeal No.3198 of 2007-Decided on 25-7-2014.
Admittedly, the deceased son of the original plaintiff, namely Nagi Reddy never acquired any interest in the suit property owned by his mother during his life time. In the aforesaid premises, the doctrine of feeding the estoppel would not come into operation as against the grand children of the original plaintiff. Section 43 in our considered opinion applies when the transferor having no interest in the property transfers the same but subsequently acquires interest in the said property, …. We have, therefore, no doubt in our mind that in a case where a transferor never acquired by succession, inheritance or otherwise any interest in the property during his life time then the provision of Section 43 will not come into operation as against the heirs who succeeded the stridhan property of their grandmother.
July 23,2014
Land Compensation
2014 STPL(Web) 492 SC
Civil Appeal Nos…83-6684 of 2014 (@ SLP (C) Nos. 8854-8855 of 2010)-Decided on 23-7-2014.
In other words, the Appollo Hospitals is now liable to bear the compensation payable for the entire extent of the land namely 11.66 cottah (11.659 cottah). Having regard to the said position and the further fact that the land in question is situated in land-locked area, even the Appellants have no option than to accept the compensation for the lands which is in the possession of the Appollo Hospitals right from the year 1991 when the lease deed came to be entered as between the Appollo Hospitals and the State of West Bengal. Realizing the said position, both the parties agreed for fixing the valuation of the lands in order to determine the compensation. …. The first Respondent shall deposit the sum of Rs.4,20,00,000 with the Secretary General of this Court within four weeks from today. The Appellants shall make all arrangements to produce the original title deeds and specify the schedule of the land and the sketch from the competent authority of the revenue department and furnish the same within eight weeks from this date. …. the Appellants will execute a deed of conveyance of the land admeasuring about 11.66 (11.659) cottah of land in favour of first Respondent. All stamp duty and registration charges and other incidental expenses for the conveyance shall be borne by the first Respondent Appollo Hospitals.
July 21,2014
Service Law – Resignation – Relieve
2014 STPL(Web) 491 SC
Civil Appeal No.10645 of 2010-Decided on 21-7-2014.
whether relevant clause (4) of the Office Memorandum dated 11.2.1988 takes away the power of the Government to effectively bring to an end the service of an employee by accepting his resignation unless the Government, besides accepting the resignation also proceeds to relieve the employee….. In the instant case, the letter of acceptance clearly shows that termination of Respondent’s service as per his offer of resignation was not deferred to any future date and hence there was no requirement to relieve him of his duties. Even the peculiar facts of this case show that the Respondent while on probation had already abandoned his temporary service for almost 8 months and had not cared to report for duty inspite of several requests. In such a situation, it would be impossible to relieve an absconding employee of his duties and if the reasoning of the High Court is accepted such employee, even if he has tendered resignation, must be continued in service till he is actually found or till he presents himself to be relieved of his duties. Such a view would be impractical and run against larger public interest….. The appeal is allowed and as a result, the writ petition of the Respondent shall stand dismissed.
July 16,2014
Dishonour of Cheque – Notice – Quashing of complaint set aside.
2014 STPL(Web) 490 SC
Criminal Appeal No.1523 of 2014 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.8783 of 2013]-Decided on 16-7-2014.
It is thus clear that Section 114 of the Evidence Act enables the Court to presume that in the common course of natural events, the communication would have been delivered at the address of the addressee. Section 27 of the GC Act gives rise to a presumption that service of notice has been effected when it is sent to the correct address by registered post. It is not necessary to aver in the complaint that in spite of the return of the notice unserved, it is deemed to have been served or that the addressee is deemed to have knowledge of the notice. Unless and until the contrary is proved by the addressee, service of notice is deemed to have been effected at the time at which the letter would have been delivered in the ordinary course of business. …. it must be held that the High Court clearly erred in quashing the complaint on the ground that there was no recital in the complaint that the notice under Section 138 of the NI Act was served upon the accused. The High Court also erred in quashing the complaint on the ground that there was no proof either that the notice was served or it was returned unserved/unclaimed. That is a matter of evidence.
July 23,2014
Cheating – Compounding allowed
2014 STPL(Web) 489 SC
Criminal Appeal No.1165 of 2014-Decided on 23-7-2014.
We are informed that out of two years imprisonment the appellant has undergone six months imprisonment. Offence under Section 420 of the IPC is compoundable with the permission of the court by the person who is cheated. Since the parties are related to each other and they have decided to accord a quietus to their disputes and live peacefully, we permit them to compound the offence. Hence, the offence under Section 420 of the IPC for which the appellant was convicted is compounded because it is compoundable with the permission of the court. The appellant is acquitted of the said charge.
July 23,2014
Dishonour of Cheque – Liability – Conviction set aside.
2014 STPL(Web) 488 SC
Criminal Appeal No. 1522 of 2014 (Arising Out of special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 278 of 2013)-Decided on 23-7-2014.
We find from the record that admittedly, the accused appellant deals with sale and purchase of landed properties and the respondent-complainant works as a Lorry Driver under him with a salary of Rs.2,500/-p.m. and Rs.20/-per day towards miscellaneous expenses (bhatta). Admittedly, the Cheque in question was for Rs.5,00,000/-and all the way the stand of the complainant was that he had given a hand loan of Rs.1,75,000/-to the accused-appellant. We find no material on record in support of the claim of the complainant giving hand loan to the accused-appellant. There was also no calculation of account or stipulation of any interest on the alleged loan amount to show as to how the amount of Rs.5,00,000/-was figured, in return of a hand loan of Rs.1,75,000/-, if at all taken by the appellant from the complainant. It is also not on record whether there was sufficient balance amount or not in the bank account of the accused when the Cheque was dishonoured by the Bank….. In the absence of any authenticated and supporting evidence, we cannot believe that the complainant-respondent who is employed under the appellant-accused, has raised an amount of Rs.1,75,000/-that too by obtaining loan of Rs.1,50,000/-from a Bank, only to give hand loan to his employer. As the complainant himself admitted that his net savings in a year comes to about Rs. 10,000/-, it is not trustworthy that he was in a position to extend hand loan of such big amount to the appellant.
July 23,2014
Contempt – Delay – Closed
2014 STPL(Web) 487 SC
Contempt Petition (Crl.) No. 2 of 1994 with Contempt Petition (Crl.) No. 4A of 1994-Decided on 23-7-2014.
We appreciate the gravity of the subject matter highlighted by Dr. Rajeev Dhawan. We are also not oblivious of the fact that the Court was not satisfied prima facie with the initial response filed by contemner No. 3, Giriraj Kishore and ordered on 06.05.1994 to initiate the contempt proceedings against respondent Nos. 1 to 3. But, the fact of the matter is that despite the order passed on 06.05.1994, the notice accompanied by charges on contemner No. 3 has not been served so far. In this view of the matter, at this distance of time, when the subject matter remained dormant for almost two decades and now contemner No.3 is 96 years and he is not able to respond to the charges due to old age and illness, we do not think that this is a fit case where we should deal with the matter further. …. The contemner Nos.1 and 2 have also tendered unconditional apology. …. we think the contempt matters deserve to be closed.
July 23,2014
Contempt - Commissions of Inquiry is not Court
2014 STPL(Web) 486 SC
Contempt Petition (Crl.) No. 11 of 1990 with contempt petition (Crl.) No. 12 of 1990-Decided on 23-7-2014.
whether the functions which are discharged by the Supreme Court Judge as a Commissioner are purely statutory functions independent of the jurisdiction vested in the Supreme Court? …. Whether truth can be pleaded as defence in contempt proceedings? …. We do not have any doubt that functions of the Commission appointed under the 1952 Act are not like a body discharging judicial functions or judicial power. The Commission appointed under the 1952 Act in our view is not a Court and making the inquiry or determination of facts by the Commission is not of judicial character. …. Commission appointed under the 1952 Act is in the nature of a statutory Commission and merely because a Commission of Inquiry is headed by a sitting Judge of the Supreme Court, it does not become an extended arm of this Court. The Commission constituted under the 1952 Act is a fact finding body to enable the appropriate Government to decide as to the course of action to be followed. Such Commission is not required to adjudicate upon the rights of the parties and has no adjudicatory functions. The Government is not bound to accept its recommendations or act upon its findings. The mere fact that the procedure adopted by the Commission is of a legal character and it has the power to administer oath will not clothe it with the status of Court. That being so, in our view, the Commission appointed under the 1952 Act is not a Court for the purposes of Contempt of Courts Act even though it is headed by a sitting Supreme Court Judge.
July 22,2014
Contempt - Sahara Case – No Parole
2014 STPL(Web) 485 SC
I.A. NOS. 8-9 & 10-12 of 2014 in Contempt Petition (C) No.412 of 2012 in Civil Appeal No. 9813 of 2011 with I.A. Nos. 8-9 & 10-12 of 2014 in Contempt Petition (C) No.413 of 2012 in Civil Appeal No. 9833 of 2011 and I.A. Nos. 10-12 of 2014 In Contempt Petition (C) No.260 of 2013 in Civil Appeal No. 8643 of 2012-Decided on 22-7-2014.
Saharas have now made the present applications seeking certain directions. In I.As No. 8-9 of 2014, Shri Subrata Roy Sahara has prayed for temporary/conditional release from judicial custody for a period of 15 days or so to meet his nonagenarian and ailing mother as also for taking steps for compliance with the order of this Court …. That brings us to the question whether the contemnors can be granted parole as prayed for in the applications? We regret to say that we do not, for the present, see any justification for us to take a view different from the one taken in our order dated 4th June, 2014. There is nothing before us to show that Shri Subrata Roy Sahara suffers from any serious medical condition….. There is, at present, no concrete proposal with Saharas for sale of the properties situate in India or abroad that may call for any negotiation by Shri Subrata Roy Sahara. While it may be true that such negotiations cannot be said to be advisable when properties of such magnitude as in the instant case are sought to be sold, yet it is pre-mature for us to make any arrangement to facilitate any such negotiations either by directing release of Shri Subrata Roy Sahara on parole or otherwise.
July 22,2014
Writ of habeas corpus – Not made out
2014 STPL(Web) 484 SC
Writ petition (Crl.) No. 147 of 2013-Decided on 22-7-2014.
it is evident that there are series of cases pertaining to land disputes between the family of the alleged detenu and other villagers. Civil cases were filed initially….. It is clear from the said narration of facts that the petitioner is in judicial custody by virtue of an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate….. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was illegal detention without any case is incorrect. Therefore, the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted….. I entirely agree with the view taken by him that the petitioner cannot be said to be in illegal custody so as to warrant the issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus….. whether the petitioner can be said to be in the unlawful custody. Our answer to that question is in the negative. The record which we have carefully perused shows that the petitioner is an accused facing prosecution for offences, cognizance whereof has already been taken by the competent Court. He is presently in custody pursuant to the order of remand made by the said Court. A writ of Habeas Corpus is, in the circumstances, totally mis-placed.
12345...>>
 
2010-2012 © STPL