2016 SCC Vol. 3 March 28, 2016 Part 3

Constitution of India — Arts. 22(5), 14, 19 and 21 — Detention order and its grounds vis-á-vis order of Advisory Board/competent authority rejecting representation of detenu: Manner in which said orders should comply with Art. 22. Detention order and its grounds have to be communicated at the earliest as mandated under Art. 22(5). However, in case a representation is made against detention order and Advisory Board/competent authority rejects said representation, Board/competent authority is not required to communicate grounds of said rejection to detenu. [Union of India v. Saleena, (2016) 3 SCC 437]

Courts, Tribunals and Judiciary — High Courts — Appeal — Intra-court appeal — Scope: In intra-court appeal on a finding of fact, unless Appellate Bench concludes that findings of Single Judge were perverse, it shall not disturb the same. Merely because another or better view is possible, order of Single Judge should not be interfered with, unless both sides agree for a fairer approach on relief. [Narendra & Co. (P) Ltd. v. Workmen, (2016) 3 SCC 340]

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Ss. 408, 406, 407 and Ss. 397 to 401— Power of Sessions Judge to transfer cases under S. 408: Seeking transfer at the drop of a hat is inconceivable. Order of transfer is not to be passed as matter of routine or merely because an interested party has expressed some apprehension about proper conduct of trial. Power has to be exercised cautiously and in exceptional situations, where it becomes necessary to do so to provide credibility to trial. There has to be a real apprehension that there would be miscarriage of justice. [Usmangani Adambhai Vahora v. State of Gujarat, (2016) 3 SCC 370]

Electricity Act, 2003 — Ss. 86(1)(f), 94, 95, 174 and 175 — Invocation of jurisdiction of State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Commission) under S. 86(1)(f) of 2003 Act: Principles underlying the provisions of Limitation Act, 1963, though not the provisions themselves, particularly those underlying Ss. 5 and 14 of Limitation Act, 1963, are applicable to State Electricity Regulatory Commission when it functions as statutory adjudicatory quasi-judicial/judicial authority in determining all claims or disputes, including those arising out of contract, between licensees and generating companies, either by itself or by referring dispute(s) to arbitration. However, said limitation principles are inapplicable to proceedings before Commission in respect of its other powers or functions which are administrative or regulatory in nature. [A.P. Power Coordination Committee v. Lanco Kondapalli Power Ltd., (2016) 3 SCC 468]

Hindu Law Women’s Rights Act, 1933 (Mysore Act 10 of 1933) — S. 4(1)(ii) — Succession: After receiving share in joint family properties pursuant to partition among two brothers, one of them died intestate leaving behind his widow and unmarried daughters. In absence of any male issue, widow alone would succeed to deceased husband’s estate under S. 4(1)(ii). Right of succession of daughters is thereby excluded in view of order of succession prescribed under S. 4(1). Neither S. 8(1)(d) nor S. 10(1)(g) attracted in such case. [L. Gowramma v. Sunanda, (2016) 3 SCC 356]

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Ss. 23, 34 and 54: Enhancement of compensation of the acquired land. [Omkar Singh v. State of Haryana, (2016) 3 SCC 364]

Land Acquisition and Requisition — Relief — Moulding of relief — Discretion and duty of court: For balance of equities in a situation where landowner(s) is/are denied return of land (illegally acquired), beneficiary of illegal allotment is permitted to retain same (in part) in larger public interest. Non-destructive exercise of judicial power to save full-fledged educational campus raised at the risk of beneficiary (Educational Society). As in this case, a fullfledged academic campus came up on 55 acres of land. Large number of persons utilising benefit of said infrastructure and facilities provided therein. Said infrastructure provided avenues of employment to many. Host of other such circumstances cannot be overlooked by Court. Hence, out of 55 acres of land which was allotted to beneficiary Society, beneficiary directed to surrender 15 acres of land to Development Authority (MUDA) and in respect of remaining 40 acres out of 55 acres, persons entitled should receive compensation in terms of LA Act. [K.B. Ramachandra Raje v. State of Karnataka, (2016) 3 SCC 422]

Mines and Minerals — Mining lease: As there was new procedure of grant of mining lease only by e-tendering in State of U.P. (for minor minerals) as per High Court’s direction in Nar Narain Mishra, (2013) 2 ADJ 166, but impugned interim order of High Court against appellant whose lease for minor minerals was granted/renewed. Interim order not interfered with and matter directed to be decided on merits by High Court. [Ramakant Dwivedi v. Rafiq Ahmad, (2016) 3 SCC 352]

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Ss. 52-A and 55: Directions issued for protection of seized narcotics/contraband against theft, substitution and pilferage. [Union of India v. Mohanlal, (2016) 3 SCC 379]

Rent Control and Eviction — Landlord-tenant relationship — Landlord — Concept: Person should be entitled in his own legal right to evict tenant from premises and retain its control, hold and use of premise for himself. Concept under rent control law is distinct from ownership in title suit. [Boorugu Mahadev & Sons v. Sirigiri Narasing Rao, (2016) 3 SCC 343]

Right to Information Act, 2005 — S. 8(1)(e) — Exemption for information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship: Examiner’s identity cannot be revealed to information seeker. There is a fiduciary relationship between examiner and PSC. Disclosure of identity of examiners is in the least interest of the general public. It would rather give rise to dire consequences and would lead to public unrest and confusion. [Kerala Public Service Commission v. State Information Commission, (2016) 3 SCC 417]

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

twelve + twelve =