(141) SHANKARRAO BHAGWANTRAO PATIL ETC. Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 20-09-2021 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4 and 18 - Land Acquisition - Compensation Determination of - State has taken possession of a part of the land in 1984 and another part in 1992 as is apparent from the reading of the two awards of the Special Land Acquisition Officer- Bhoom town has a small population of 17150 - Possession of the land was taken for construction of government quarters and a road. Since the use of the land for a government quarter was known, therefore, the smaller area was sol
(142) RAM MANOHAR LOHIA JOINT HOSPITAL AND OTHERS Vs. MUNNA PRASAD SAINI AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 20-09-2021 A. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 25F - Direction for reinstatement - Setting aside of - It is clear that the respondent was not a permanent employee but a contractual employee - There is no evidence to establish that the appellant had retained junior workers; such unfair trade practice is not alleged or even argued before us - Respondent having worked for more than 240 days, termination of his services violated the mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 194
(143) STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS Vs. M.S. VISWANATHAN AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 20-09-2021 Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 - Section 3(2) - Possession - High Court did not even look into the letter nor did the High Court examine the records of the Department. Both the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench proceeded on the premise that the land was lying vacant with a compound wall and that therefore, the claim of the land owner to be in possession must be correct. There can hardly be any such presumption - Existence of the compound wall enclosing e
(144) ZARIFUDDIN Vs. ABDUL QADIR AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 20-09-2021 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Sections 326-A, 452, 120B - Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid - Setting aside of bail order - It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the parties that nine out of nineteen witnesses including four public witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. However, some of the public witnesses including the victims have to be examined - Charge sheet in this case has been filed on 10.08.2016 - Keeping in view the facts of the present case and nature of the
(145) SURYA EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST Vs. M/S SETIA BUILDERS ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 20-09-2021 Reduction of cost imposed by High Court - This Court modify the costs, which are reduced to Rs. 3 Lakh - Costs as reduced will be paid within three weeks.
(146) GEETA GUPTA Vs. RAMESH CHANDRA DWIVEDI AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 20-09-2021 By this appeal, the appellant who was the writ petitioner before the High Court at Allahabad has taken an exception to the Judgment and Order dated 9th October, 2009 passed by the learned Single judge of Allahabad High Court.
(147) MADAN LAL AND OTHERS ETC. Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB ETC. [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 20-09-2021 This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 22.01.2018 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in RFA Nos. 3154 of 2003 (O&M), 2580, 2581, 2582, 2583, 2584, 2999, 3000, 4556, 5560 of 2001 (O&M), and 853, 1286, 2716, 2717 and 2718 of 2002 (O&M).
(148) SULOCHANABAI SWAROPCHAND CHAWRE Vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, AMRAVATI DIVISION, AMRAVATI AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 20-09-2021 This appeal challenges the order dated 27.08.2018 passed by the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench at Nagpur in W.P. No. 5115 of 2018.
(149) ULTIMATE V CARBON Vs. THE DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 20-09-2021 Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel, submits that the impugned order by the National Green Tribunal, Southern Zone, Chennai, was without notice to the appellant, who were never heard. Appellant, it is stated, is compliant with the statutory norms.
(150) UFLEX LIMITED Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-09-2021 Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Judicial Review - Tender jurisdiction - Judicial review of contractual matters has its own limitations - It is in this context of judicial review of administrative actions that this Court has opined that it is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and mala fide - Purpose is to check whether the choice of decision is made lawfully and not to check whether the choice of decision is sound. In evaluating tenders and award
(151) SALIM D. AGBOATWALA AND OTHERS Vs. SHAMALJI ODDHAVJI THAKKAR AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-09-2021 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) - Order 7 Rule 11 - Rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 is a drastic power conferred on the Court to terminate a civil action at the threshold - Therefore, the conditions precedent to the exercise of the power are stringent and it is especially so when rejection of plaint is sought on the ground of limitation - When a plaintiff claims that he gained knowledge of the essential facts giving rise to the cause of action only at a particular point of time, the
(152) DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI Vs. M/S. MITSUBISHI CORPORATION [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-09-2021 Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 209(1)(d) and 234B - Interest for defaults in payment of advance tax - Prior to the financial year 2012-13, the amount of income-tax which is deductible or collectible at source can be reduced by the assessee while calculating advance tax, the Respondent cannot be held to have defaulted in payment of its advance tax liability - Position has changed since the financial year 2012-13, in view of the proviso to Section 209(1)(d), pursuant to which if the assessee rece
(153) RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LIMITED AND ANOTHER Vs. ANIL KANWARIYA [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-09-2021 Service Law - False declaration found during documents verification - Employee once made a false declaration and/or suppressed the material fact of pending criminal case shall not be entitled to an appointment as a matter of right - Held: - Where the employer feels that an employee who at the initial stage itself has made a false statement and/or not disclosed the material facts and/or suppressed the material facts and therefore he cannot be continued in service because such an employee canno
- Where the employer feels that an employee who at the initial stage itself has made a false statement and/or not disclosed the material facts and/or suppressed the material facts and therefore he cannot be continued in service because such an employee canno
(154) KANCHAN SHARMA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-09-2021 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 482 - Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Sections 107 and 306 - Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(2)(v) - Abetment of suicide - Quashing of proceedings - Allegation against appellant that the appellant refused to marry the deceased, deceased has committed suicide by consuming poison and appellant and other members of the family have casteist abuses and forcefully administered poison to him - Except the
(155) SYED AFSAR PASHA QUADRI Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-09-2021 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the State of Telangana and carefully perused the material available on record.
(156) RASOOLSHAN A Vs. THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 17-09-2021 We are convinced with the explanation offered on affidavit and the assurances given therein by the State. We only hope and trust that the authorities will take all precautions and essential steps to ensure that no untoward situation is faced by the students, who are of tender age and would be appearing for the proposed examination.
(157) MAULIN J BAROT Vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 16-09-2021 Having heard Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General for the State of Gujarat as also Mr. Saurabh Mishra, learned counsel for the Applicant, we direct the Respondent- State to prepare a draft mechanism as prayed for by the applicant in IA No. 62510 of 2020, which is as extracted below:
(158) USTICE (RETD) ASHOK IQBAL SINGH CHEEMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 16-09-2021 During the course of hearing, learned Attorney General fairly states that respondent No. 1 - Union of India has no objection in accepting the prayer C made by the petitioner in the present writ petition and to allow the petitioner to work upto 20.09.2021 as the Officiating Chairperson, National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi to enable him to pronounce the judgments prepared by him. The prayer C as contained in the Writ Petition reads as follows:
(159) MOHD. RAFIQ @ KALLU Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 15-09-2021 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Sections 299, 302 and 304 - Murder - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Police officials were stationed at a vantage point, on the main road, when the truck reached there. Sub-inspector (deceased) motioned the truck to stop; it was driven by the accused - Instead of applying brakes, the accused tried to speed away, upon which Sub-inspector (deceased) boarded the truck from its left side. At that stage, it is alleged that the accused warned Sub-inspector (deceased)
(160) SUDHIR KUMAR @ S. BALIYAN Vs. VINAY KUMAR G.B. [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 15-09-2021 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) - Order 11 Rules 1, 1(4) and 1(5) - Requirement of establishing the reasonable cause for non disclosure of the documents along with the plaint shall not be applicable if it is averred and it is the case of the plaintiff that those documents have been found subsequently and in fact were not in the plaintiff's power, possession, control or custody at the time when the plaint was filed - Therefore Order XI Rule 1 (4) and Order XI Rule 1 (5) applicable to the commerc