2017 SCC Vol. 8 September 28, 2017 Part 3

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Or. 9 R. 13: Ex parte decree obtained in suit for specific performance of sale of suit premises with a view to stultify final order of eviction is liable to be set aside. [Laldhari Mistri v. Vijay Kumar, (2017) 8 SCC 406]

Labour Law — Termination of Service — Judicial review/Validity: When there are matters at large before court, High Court ought to have limited itself only to justiciability of Tribunal’s order. [Shubham Bahuuddeshiya Sanstha v. Dnyaneshwar Govindrao Daigavhane, (2017) 8 SCC 409]

Constitution of India — Art. 129 — Contempt of Supreme Court: By Supreme Court order on 7-7-2017, with regard to earlier affidavit, respondent contemnor was allowed to file an affidavit of an absolutely unequivocal and categorical unconditional apology. In pursuance thereof, an affidavit was filed by respondent contemnor, also expressing his regret and stating that whatever has been stated in affidavit has come from core of his heart. Hence, proceedings for contempt dropped and also direction for initiation of proceedings under S. 340 CrPC discharged. [Anurag Thakur, In Re, (2017) 8 SCC 415]

Constitution of India — Arts. 21 and 32 — Fake Encounters/use of excessive or retaliatory force by police personnel and personnel of Armed Forces in State of Manipur: It was alleged that 1528 persons were killed in fake encounters. CBI directed to constitute a Special Investigation Team to investigate the alleged extra judicial killings in Manipur. [Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Assn. v. Union of India, (2017) 8 SCC 417]

Contempt of Court — Civil Contempt — General principles — Wilful disobedience/Contumacious conduct — Part-implementation/Non-implementation of Majithia Wage Board Award: Part-implementation/non-implementation of Majithia Wage Board Award by newspaper establishments concerned was on account of what said establishments perceived to be scope and ambit of award, and hence, newspaper establishments not guilty of contempt. However, considering that default alleged was unmistakably evident, clarifications issued and newspaper establishments granted another opportunity to implement award in full. Further directed that henceforth all complaints with regard to non-implementation of award or otherwise be dealt with in terms of mechanism provided under S. 17 of the Working Journalists Act. [Avishek Raja v. Sanjay Gupta, (2017) 8 SCC 435]

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Ss. 437 and 439: As partial charge-sheet was submitted on 7-3-2015 and thereafter despite several extensions of time for completion of remaining part of investigation, including order of extension of time by Supreme Court, investigation not completed, appellant entitled to bail. [Pravat Kumar Dash v. CBI, (2017) 8 SCC 452]

Constitution of India — Art. 226 — Habeas corpus — Custody of child — Inter-country dispute: Remedy of writ of habeas corpus cannot be used for enforcement of directions of foreign court and convert jurisdiction of High Court into an executing court. Writ petitioner can take recourse to other remedy or proceedings for enforcement of foreign court’s order. [Nithya Anand Raghavan v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2017) 8 SCC 454]

Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (59 of 1958) — S. 14 — Eviction on ground of parting with possession without consent of appellant landlord: As it was established by evidence that there was parting of possession by R-1 of portion of premises in favour of R-2 without appellant’s consent and that R-2 was carrying on business as authorised ration distributor in said premises, it was rightly found by Rent Controller parting with possession of premises without consent of landlord is sufficient for eviction of tenant, hence, respondents directed to vacate premises within stipulated time. [Bhairon Sahai v. Bishamber Dayal, (2017) 8 SCC 492]

Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 302 and 309 — Murder trial — Circumstantial evidence — Links in the chain of circumstances — Not established: Attempt to commit suicide by appellant and deceased due to opposition to their love affair by consuming poison, was not successful but deceased was found to have committed suicide later by hanging herself. Recovered suicide note, proved to be in her handwriting. Conduct of accused on the date of incident, also creating dent in prosecution case. All aforesaid factors show that prosecution was not able to bring out and prove guilt of appellant beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, conviction of appellant is set aside. [Satish Nirankari v. State of Rajasthan, (2017) 8 SCC 497]

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Ss. 437 and 439: As appellant-accused was in custody for over 13 yrs, it was held that appeal being of 2014 not likely to be heard in near future unless expedited which course of action Supreme Court was not inclined to order. While taking into account, period of custody suffered and time that may be taken in disposing of appeal, release of appellant-accused on bail directed, subject to satisfaction of trial court. [Shyam Lal v. State of Rajasthan, (2017) 8 SCC 517]

Constitution of India — Arts. 137 and 145 — Review under Art. 137 r/w Or. 40 R. 1, Supreme Court Rules, 1966 — Review in criminal cases: Review can be made on ground of glaring omission or patent mistake or error apparent on face of record leading to miscarriage of justice. Review cannot be made on ground already urged during appeal. It cannot be made on ground that another view is possible on conviction and sentence. Review jurisdiction under Art. 137 for criminal cases not restricted by Or. 40 R. 1. [Vikram Singh v. State of Punjab, (2017) 8 SCC 518]

Armed Forces — Promotion — Entitlement to — Freedom available to employer in this regard — Scope of judicial interference: Vide Letter dt. 28-8-2000/31-8-2000, Government sanctioned abolition of 10% promotion quota from ministerial cadre to Assistant Commandant of BSF but created 26 posts of Assistant Commandants and 8 posts of Deputy Commandants for them. However, no such benefit extended. Thereafter, post cadre review vide memo dt. 28-11-2003, 67 posts of Assistant Commandants were created for ministerial cadre. High Court by impugned judgment issuing mandamus for giving effect to decision dt. 28-8-2000/31-8-2000. It was held that said decision was superseded by cadre review which took place on 28-11-2003. Further held, though subject-matters of two communications may be slightly different but subject-matter of Letter dt. 28-11-2003 encompassed entire supervisory and support infrastructure of BSF including ministerial cadre. Further, fact that promotion of respondents was restricted only to level of Assistant Commandants, was inconsequential, since court cannot interfere with such decisions unless found totally arbitrary or perverse. BSF being a combat force, it is for employer to decide levels of promotion and Court cannot by its decision change opinion of expert bodies. Impugned judgment was not sustainable. [Union of India v. S. Ravichandran, (2017) 8 SCC 535]

Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 — Cls. (7) and (8) of Pt. I of the Second Schedule — Professional misconduct — Non-establishment of, for lack of evidence: Disciplinary action was taken against the respondent for issuing certificates for consumption of raw materials showing the value of imported raw material as CIF value to the units without seeing the records. In the absence of material on record to establish that the units had paid an amount more than what was mentioned in the CIF value or purchase vouchers, it was held that no adverse inference could be drawn against the respondent. Further, Disciplinary Committee had chosen not to call for the books of accounts and, therefore, no adverse inference i.e. that the units did not maintain any record for past production or the figures were manipulated, could be drawn. [Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. M.S. Rathi, (2017) 8 SCC 539]

SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011 — Regn. 10 r/w Regns. 3 and 4 — Exemption from making an open offer under Regns. 3 and 4 — Applicability of, to inter se transfer between promoters of target company: Precondition for seeking exemption i.e. person to be a promoter for not less than three years prior to proposed acquisition is mandatory in nature. [Laurel Energetics (P) Ltd. v. SEBI, (2017) 8 SCC 541]

One comment

Join the discussion

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.