Lawteller June 2022
Lawteller June 2022
Lawteller June 2022
IN B R IE F
General and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where relatives of complainant’s
husband are forced to undergo trial. Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., Criminal
Appeal No. 195 of 2022 (SC).
Accused gave several blows/multiple blows on vital part of body - Case falls under Clauses thirdly
and fourthly of Section 300 IPC amounting to culpable homicide amounting to murder . State of Uttarakhand
Vs. Sachendra Singh Rawat, Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 2022 (SC).
Recovery in absence of substantive evidence, not sufficient to prove case beyond reasonable doubt.
Suryavir Vs. State of Haryana, Criminal Appeal No. 177 of 2022 (SC).
Confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of NDPS Act will remain inadmissible in trial of
offence. State by (NCB) BengaluruVs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr., Petition for Special Leave toAppeal
(Crl.) No. 242 of 2022 (SC).
If personal search is vitiated by violation of Section 50 of NDPS Act, recovery made otherwise not
vitiated. Dayalu Kashyap Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, Criminal Appeal No. 130 of 2022 (SC).
Section 69(2) of Partnership Act cannot bar enforcement by way of suit by unregistered firm in respect
of statutory right or common law right. Shiv Developers Throught its Partner Sunilbhai Somabhai Ajmeri Vs.
Aksharay Developers & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 785 of 2022 (SC).
Denial of pension by State to ad-hoc employee who continuously worked for 30 years is nothing but
unreasonable. State of Gujarat & Ors. Vs. Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel, Petition for Special Leave to Appeal
(C) No. 1109 of 2022 (SC).
Policy prevalent at time of conviction be taken into consideration for considering premature release of
prisoner. Mata Prasad Vs. State of UP & Anr., Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 256 of 2021 (SC).
Order of premature retirement required to be passed on basis of entire service records, though recent
reports would carry their own weight. Central Industrial Security Force Vs. HC (GD) Om Prakash, Civil
Appeal No. 5428 of 2012 (SC).
CSIR is Society under Societies Registration Act, 1860, authority owned or controlled by Central
Government. Sharada Dayadhish Shetty Vs. Director, CSIR-NCL & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 223 of 2022 (SC).
Punishment inflicted by disciplinary authority after upholding finding of guilt recorded by inquiry
officer, Disciplinary proceedings and punishment proper. General Manager (Operation-1) Vs. Krishna Kumar
Bhardwaj, Civil Appeal No. 1458 of 2022 (SC).
IN B R IE F
Accused must be given opportunity to make representation against sentence imposed on him.
Bhagwani Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal Nos. 101-102 of 2022 (SC).
Rape with minor - Safe to convict accused relying upon deposition of independent witness before
whom victim girl narrated entire incident recorded in medical examination report. Nawabuddin Vs. State of
Uttarakhand, Criminal Appeal No. 144 of 2022.
High Court not required to reappreciate evidence and/or interfere with findings recorded by inquiry
officer accepted by disciplinary authority. Umesh Kumar Pahwa Vs. Board of Directors Uttarakhand Gramin
Bank & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 796-799 of 2022 (SC).
Repatriation of Prisoners Act - Sentence imposed by transferring State shall be binding on receiving
State i.e., India. Union of India & Anr. Vs. Shaikh Istiyaq Ahmed & Ors., Criminal Appeal No. 71 of 2022
(SC).
No mandamus can be issued by Court directing State Government to provide for reservation. The
State of Punjab Vs. Anshika Goyal & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 317 of 2022 (SC).
IN B R IE F
Unless and until borrower ready to deposit/pay entire amount payable together with all costs and
expenses with secured creditor, borrower cannot be discharged from entire liability outstanding. Bank of Baroda
Vs. M/s Karwa Trading Company & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 363 of 2022 (SC).
Writ petition against private financial institution under Article 226 of Constitution of India against
proposed action/actions under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act not maintainable. Phoenix Arc Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 257-259 of 2022 (SC).
Scheme providing backdoor entry into service contrary to Article 16 which guarantees equal opportunity
in matters of public employment. Chief Personnel Officer & Ors. Vs. A. Nishanth George, Civil Appeal No.
294 of 2022 (SC).
Grant of leave to defend (with or without conditions) is ordinary rule and denial of leave to defend is
exception. B.L. Kashyap and Sons Ltd. Vs. M/s JMS Steels and Power Corporatoin & Anr., Civil Appeal No.
379 of 2022 (SC).
Voluntariness and animus necessary for execution of valid gift deed - Donee to discharge burden of
proving that he exerted no influence for purpose of obtaining Gift deed. Keshav and Ors. Vs. Gian Chand &
Anr., Civil Appeal No. 364 of 2022 (SC).
Arbitrator is final arbiter of disputes between parties – Not open to party to challengeAward on ground
that he drew his own conclusions or failed to appreciate certain facts.Atlanta Limited thr. Its Managing Director
Vs. Union of India, Civil Appeal No. 1533 of 2017 (SC).
If a female Hindu dies intestate without leaving any issue, then property inherited by her goes back
to heirs of her father. Arunachala Gounder (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. Ponnusamy & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 6659 of
2011 (SC).
Limited estate given to Hindu Wife by way of Will can become absolute under Section 14(1) of Hindu
Succession Act only of property given for her maintenance. Jogi Ram Vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors., Civil Appeal
Nos. 1543-1544 of 2019 (SC).
Paramount consideration is welfare for minor child and rights of parties litigating over custody issue
are irrelevant. Vasudha Sethi & Ors. Vs. Kiran V. Bhaskar & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 82 of 2022 (SC).
Readiness and willingness to perform contract – Conduct of plaintiff is very crucial in suit for specific
performance. Shenbagam & Ors. Vs. K.K. Rathinavel, Civil Appeal No. 150 of 2022 (SC).
A Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. The State of Uttarakhand thought it fit to accept the
Sundresh of the Supreme Court said concept of recommended revised pay scale of the Government of
equality is not an inflexible doctrine. When there is a India dated 31.12.2008, meant to be applied for the
reasonable basis for a classification adopted by taking Central Universities and Central Government Colleges,
note of the exigencies and diverse situation, absolute to its teaching faculties alone, except sub-clause (f)
equality cannot be insisted upon by taking a rigid and in clause 8, which speaks of age of superannuation.
pedantic view as against a pragmatic one. If there is Sudhir Budakoti (respondent No. 1) was selected and
an intelligible differentia between the two groups given the appointment to the post of Lecturer on
having a rational relation to the object, such a 23.11.2009, which was notified in the advertisement
discrimination would not be termed as arbitrary. The itself. After taking charge as an Assistant Registrar in
question as to whether a classification is reasonable Kumaon University, respondent No. 1 filed writ
or not is to be answered on the touchstone of a petition before High Court of Uttarakhand seeking the
reasonable, common man’s approach keeping in mind pay scale meant to be applied for his counterparts in
the avowed object behind it. the Central Universities.
The Bench held, filling the job of lecturer on The pay scale of respondent No. 1 was also revised
temporary basis did not make a Lecturer. It was just by the State of Uttarakhand on the recommendation
an administrative convenience borne out of a of Sixth Pay Commission through a Government Order
contingency. The decision of the appellant-State was dated 05.04.2011. Resultantly, respondent No. 1 got his
to adopt the revised pay-scale qua the Lecturers, who prayer duly amended seeking to question it as
formed a distinct group as against respondent No. 1 unconstitutional.
who held a higher position in the administration.
On 27.02.2012, the High Court of Uttarakhand issued
When the classification was distinct and clear having
a direction to the Pay Anomaly Committee to look into
adequate rationale with due relation to the objective,
the matter afresh, which was accordingly complied
Registrar could not have been treated at par with the
with, by not accepting the case of respondent No. 1,
Lecturers. One is meant for administration and the
finding no justification particularly when there is a
other for teaching.
distinct difference in the qualification as prescribed by
The Supreme Court while accepting the appeal of State the UGC and the State Government for the aforesaid
of Uttarakhand held when a classification is made on post.
the recommendation made by a body of experts
The High Court of Uttarakhand allowed the writ
constituted for the purpose, courts will have limited
petition. An appeal was filed by the State against the
scope of interference.
judgment of the High Court, and the same was
The State of Uttarakhand, on 16.06.2008, sent a accepted.
requisition to the State Public Service Commission for
OPERATIVE PART
the appointment of Registrars in the State
Universities, clearly indicating the essential “The High Court of Uttarakhand in our opinion has
qualifications along with the pay scale. completely misconstrued the facts. The Appellant
IN B R IE F
Resolution plan submitted by Guarantor cannot be entertained. Bank of Barod & Anr. Vs. MBL
Infrastructures Ltd. & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 8411 of 2019 (SC).
Infringement of trademark deals with situations where trade mark is identical, but goods or services
are not similar to those for which trade mark is registered. Renaissance Hotel Holdings Inc. Vs. B. Vijaya Sai
& Ors., Civil Appeal No. 404 of 2022 (SC).
Even in absence of registered cancellation of power of attorney, there must be cancellation and it
must be brought to notice of third party at any rate. Amar Nath Vs. Gian Chand & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 5797
of 2009 (SC).
Award not a document of title to property hence it did not require registration. K. Arumuga Velaiah
Vs. P.R. Ramasamy & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 2564 of 2012 (SC).
Jurisdiction exclusively vests with High Court for execution of foreign decree under Section 44A.Messer
Griesheim GmbH (Now called Air Liquide Deutschland GmbH) Vs. Goyal MG Gases Pvt. Ltd., Civil Appeal
No. 521 of 2022 (SC).
CPC Rules as applicable to commercial dispute of specified value, do operate in manner that after
expiry of 120th day from date of service of summons, defendant forfeits right to submit his written statement.
Prakash Corporates Vs. Dee Vee Projects Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 1318 of 2022 (SC).
CPC indeed permits plaintiff to join causes of action but it does not compel plaintiff to do so. B.R.
Patil Vs. Tulsa Y. Sawkar & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 2652-2654 of 2013 (SC).
No independent suit maintainable against Compromise Decree. M/s Sree Surya Developers and
Promotes Vs. N. Sailesh Prasad & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 439 of 2022 (SC).
A Bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai Prasad as well as P.W.12-Major D. Srinivas, who were
of the Supreme Court while dismissing the appeal filed also working as Recruiting Medical Officers, contacted
by Union of India held as per clauses (a), (b) and (c) the respondent-officer and told him that they help the
of Sub Section (4) of Section 15 of Armed Forces candidates by making them medically fit and asked his
Tribunal Act, 2007 (AFT), can interfere where finding help for clearing certain candidates by declaring them
of Court Martial is legally unsustainable due to any medically fit. It is the case of the prosecution that,
reason whatsoever, when there is a wrong decision on though, at first, the respondent-officer was reluctant,
a question of law or there is a material irregularity in at the insistence of P.W.8-Major BSRK Prasad, he
the course of a trial resulting in miscarriage of justice. helped clearing certain candidates within acceptable
The Bench held if view taken by AFT is found to be range.
a plausible one, it would not be permissible for Further prosecution case was that when the
Supreme Court to interfere with the same only because respondent-officer went to his native place at Dharwad
another view appears to be more probable/plausible. on 28th December, 2008, he was informed by P.W.8-
Equally, unless finding of AFT is found to be perverse Major BSRK Prasad that an amount of Rs.65,000/-
or impossible, an interference would not be justified. would be paid to him towards his share.
The Bench held, AFT rightly acquitted respondent- Still further case of the prosecution was that in another
officer of the offence punishable under Section 7 of Recruitment Rally in Dausa in January, 2009. P.W.12-
the PC Act. The respondent-officer successfully Major D. Srinivas requested the respondent-of ficer to
discharged the burden to prove how the aforesaid help some candidates and the respondent-of ficer,
amounts were deposited in his account and in account though reluctant, helped in clearing some candidates
of his father-in-law. Therefore, his conviction under within the acceptable range.
Section 63 and sentence of forfeiture of seniority of On 14.12.2009, the Court of Inquiry proceedings were
rank and of severe reprimand was quashed and set convened. The General Officer in Commanding (GOC)
aside. He was directed to be reinstated forthwith with vide note dated 14.12.2009 directed disciplinary action
continuity of service but he shall not be entitled to to be taken against the respondent-officer and two
back wages for the period during which he was out of other officers, namely P.W.12-Major D. Srinivas and
employment. P.W.8- Major BSRK Prasad and three Junior
In the year 2008, Major R. Metri – the respondent- Commissioner Offices.
officer was posted as the Recruiting Medical Officer, The respondent-officer and others challenged the
Army Recruiting Office, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. At the Court of Inquiry proceedings before the AFT, Jaipur.
relevant time, PW-1 Col. Anil Singh Rathore was the The same were rejected on 09.04.2010. The GCM
Director of the Army Recruiting Office. proceedings were ordered to be instituted against the
Between 16th December, 2008 and 18th December, 2008, respondent-officer and five others on 28.06.2012 on the
an Army Recruitment Rally took place in Udaipur. basis of three charges and the conclusions of the trial,
According to the prosecution, P.W.8-Major BSRK the GCM found respondent-officer guilty of charge
IN B R IE F
Insurance Company cannot have repudiated claim merely on ground of delay in intimating Insurance
Company. Jaina Construction Company Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. &Anr., Civil Appeal No. 1069
of 2022 (SC).
Cancellation of allotment of plot obtained after filing false affidavit is legitimate ground of cancellation
of lease. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority Vs. Ravindra Kumar Singhvi (Dead) Thr. Lrs., Civil
Appeal No. 382 of 2012 (SC).
Merely because on account of death of husband’s mother, wife visited her matrimonial home and stayed
there only for one day, cannot be said resumption of cohabitation amounts to desertion. Debananda Tamuli
Vs. Smti Kakumony Kataky, Civil Appeal No. 1339 of 2022 (SC).
Merely because trial court not granted relief in favour of plaintiffs, would not come in their way in
High Court allowing their claims. Azgar Barid (D) by Lrs. & Ors. Vs. Mazambi @ Pyaremabi & Ors., Civil
Appeal No. 249 of 2010 (SC).
Highest bidder has no vested right to have auction concluded in his favour and in given circumstances
under limited scope of judicial review under Article 226 of Constitution of India. State of Punjab & Ors. Vs.
Mehar Din, Civil Appeal No. 5861 of 2009 (SC).
Court has no power to extend period of limitation on equitable grounds. Lingeswaran Etc. Vs.
Thirunagalingam, Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 2054-2055 of 2022 (SC).
IN B R IE F
No writ of mandamus can be issued virtually granting writ for specific performance of contract/work
order in writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Municipal Council Gondia Vs. Divi Works &
Suppliers, HUF & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 1538 of 2022 (SC).
High Court has no jurisdiction to remand matter to same Arbitrator unless it is consented by both
parties that matter be remanded to same Arbitrator. Dr. A. Parthasarathy & Ors Vs. E. Springs Avenues Pvt.
Ltd. & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 1463 of 2022 (SC).
No straight jacket formula for aw arding amount of compensation under heads, pain and suf fering and
loss of amenities and happiness and depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. Sri Benson George
Vs. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 1540 of 2022 (SC).
Unless Bank and Insurance Company able to establish on cogent basis that special conditions of
policy issued by Insurance Company to bank were drawn to notice of account holder for whose benefit
insurance cover extended, claim cannot be rejected. Anju Kalsi Vs. HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company
Ltd. & Anr., Civil Appeal Nos. 1544-1545 of 2022 (SC).
Retrospective enforcement of unintentional omission/mistake or arithmetic/typographical error in
agreement permissible but retrospective enforcement of substantial alteration in commercial agreement
impermissible. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 4124 of
2009 (SC).
IN B R IE F
No compensation shall be awarded under Section 21, unless plaintif f has claimed compensation in his
plaint. Universal Petro Chemicals Ltd. Vs. B.P. PLC & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 3127 of 2009 (SC).
Permanent injunction cannot be granted against true owner . Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji (Deceased)
Through LRs Vs. Maniben Jagmalbhai (Deceased) Trough LRs & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 1382 of 2022 (SC).
Relation between complainant and Bank purely “business to business” relationship and transactions
were for ‘commercial purpose’ cannot be construed as consumer disputes. Shrikant G. Mantri Vs. Punjab
National Bank, Civil Appeal No. 11397 of 2016 (SC).
Open to District Magistrate or Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to appoint advocate and authorise him/
her to take possession of secured assets and documents relating thereto and to forward same to secured creditor
within meaning of Section 14(1A) of Act. NKGSB Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs. Subir Charavarty & Ors., Civil
Appeal No. 1637 of 2022 (SC).
Financier of motor vehicle/transport vehicle in respect of which a hire-purchase or lease or
hypothecation agreement entered liable to tax from date of taking possession of vehicle under agreement.
Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. Vs. State of UP & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 1217 of 2022 (SC).
Grant of Letters of Administration may be revoked for “just cause” under Section 263 of Succession
Act. Swaminathan & Ors. Vs. Alankamony (Dead) Through Lrs., Civil Appeal No. 798-799 of 2013 (SC).
Mere findings of fact cannot be interfered with in exercise of second appellate jurisdiction given three
limbs of jurisdiction available under Section 41 of Punjab Courts Act. Hardial Singh Vs. Balbir Kaur & Anr.,
Civil Appeal No. 1925 of 2022 (SC).
National Consumer Commission can interfere with order of State Commission if State Commission
exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law or failed to exercise its jurisdiction so vested. M/s Narendran
Sons Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 3 Middleton Street & Anr., Civil Appeal Nos. 1831-1832 of 2022 (SC).
Admissibility of additional evidence does not depend upon relevancy to issue on hand but it depends
upon whether or not appellate court requires evidence sought to be adduced to enable it to pronounce judgment
or for any other substantial cause. Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand, Civil Appeal No. 1760 of
2022 (SC).
Contemnors cannot claim that requirement of deposit not mandatory, but directory, therefore non-
compliance would not constitute contempt. Urban Infrastructure Real Estate Fund Vs. Dharmesh S. Jain &
Anr., Contempt Petition (C) No. 940 of 2021 in Miscellaneous Application No. 1668 of 2021 (SC).
IN B R IE F
Order de hors reasoning or bereft of relevant reasons cannot result in grant of bail. Manoj Kumar
Khokhar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 2022 (SC).
Ad valorem Court-fees would be payable on amount of damages claimed. State of Punjab & Ors. Vs.
Dev Brat Sharma, Civil Appeal No. 2064 of 2022 (SC).
Daughter does not want to maintain any relationship with father not entitled to educational and marriage
expenses. Ajay Kumar Rathee Vs. Seema Rathee, Civil Appeal No. 5141 of 2011 (SC).
Consent award cannot be basis to award and/or determine compensation in other acquisition, more
particularly, when there are other evidences on record. Special Land Acquisition Officer & Ors. Vs. N. Savitha,
Civil Appeal Nos. 2052-2053 of 2022 (SC).
IN B R IE F
Letters Patent Appeal not maintainable against order which does not contain traits and trappings of
finality. Shyam Sel and Power Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Shyam Steel Industries Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 1984 of 2022
(SC).
Merely because in document purpose of sale of property stated to be for marriage expenses, document,
will not become loan agreement and/or security document. Kirpal Kaur & Anr. Vs. Ritesh & Ors., Civil Appeal
No. 1991 of 2022 (SC).
Land owners having benefit of interim orders granted in their favour in proceedings initiated by them
against acquisition cannot take benefit under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. Agricultural Produce Marketing
Committee Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 1345-1346 of 2022 (SC).
Only averments in plaint to be referred and defence taken by defendant in written statement not be
considered for invoking Order 7, Rule 1 1 (d), on ground of suit barred by any law . Saranpal Kaur Anand Vs.
Praduman Singh Chandhok & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2573 of 2022 (SC).
No lapse in Acquisition proceedings when direction/stay granted by High Court while passing order
in writ petition continued when Act, 2013 came into force. Delhi Development Authority Vs. Rajan Sood &
Ors., Civil Appeal No. 1927 of 2022 (SC).
Exclusion of one of natural heirs from bequest, cannot by itself be ground to hold that there are
suspicious circumstances in Wills. Swarnalatha & Ors. Vs. Kalavathy & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 1565 of 2022
(SC).
Ghastly murders of three youngsters which are honour killings squarely falls under head of anti-social
and abhorrent nature of crime. Hari & Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 186 of 2018 (SC)
Evidence of hostile witnesses can be accepted, even if they are natural and independent witnesses.
Hari & Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 186 of 2018 (SC)
Criminal procedure – Fabrication of documents permissible if it does not cause loss to revenue set
aside. Missu Naseem & Anr. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., Criminal Appeal No. 160 of 2022 (SC).
Once presence of accused established and proved and specific role of exhortation assigned to him,
High Court ought to have confirmed conviction of accused. Omkar Singh Vs. Jaiprakash Narain Singh &
Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 84 of 2022 (SC).
Conviction cannot be merely on basis of suspicion, conjecture and surmises. Satye Singh & Anr. Vs.
State of Uttarakhand, Criminal Appeal No. 2374 of 2014 (SC).
The Supreme Court held once the question of law is 11.5.2015. Aggrieved against the said judgment and
answered in one matter, all other matters, pending at decree, the appellants filed first appeal before the
various stages will follow suit. The Bench consisting Additional District Judge, Suratgarh which was
of Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian dismissed on 5.10.2021. In the second appeal before
held Section 18 of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 the High Court, the appellants relied on the Division
does not talk about validity of any decree of the Civil Bench judgment of the Rajasthan High Court reported
Court but only restricts the jurisdiction of the Civil as K. Ramnarayan Khandelwal v . Shri Pukhraj
Court from the date the Act became applicable. The Banthiya, 2017 SCC OnLine Raj 4178 wherein it has
Act came into force on 11.05.2015 i.e. after the civil been held that the decree in civil suit could not be
suit was filed. Hence, decree could validly be passed passed after the applicability of the Act to the area in
and executed. A suit filed in Civil Court prior to the question. The High Court in the impugned judgment
applicability of the act had to be decided by the Civil found that such judgment has been stayed by Supreme
Court and the decree passed by the Civil Court was Court in Special Leave Petition, therefore, the
not interdicted by the applicability of the act to the judgment is not binding. In view of the said fact, the
area in question. Further, rights of the parties have to High Court held that the decree in civil suit could be
be determined on the date when lis commences i.e., passed as the same view was adopted by another co-
on the date of filing of the suit. ordinate Bench of the High Court in another case
Mohd. Rafiq v. Hanuman Sahai & Ors. (SBCWP No.
The father of the appellant (Shankarlal Nandini) was
16681 of 2019) and consequently , dismissed the
the tenant of Shop No. 4 situated at Jain Katla, Bikaner
appeals filed by the appellants.
Road, Suratgarh since 1982, whose owner was the
father of the respondent herein at that time. The Thereafter special leave petition was filed in Supreme
premises were let out on lease for monthly rent of Court.
Rs.583.33. After the death of the appellant’s father, the OPERATIVE PART
shop was continuing for monthly tenancy of the
“Under the Act in question, Section 18 does not talk
appellant. The premises in question was not in the
about the validity of any decree of the civil court but
urban area when the suit for possession was filed on
only restricts the jurisdiction of the civil court from
18.4.2013 after serving a notice of termination of
the date the Act became applicable. The Act has come
tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property
into force in respect of the premises in question on
Act, 18821. During the pendency of the suit, the State
11.5.2015 i.e., after the civil suit was filed, therefore,
Government issued a notification on 11.7.2014
the decree could validly be passed and executed. After
extending the provisions of the Rajasthan Rent Control
the applicability of the Act to the area in question,
Act, 20012 w.e.f. 11.5.2015.
the landlord and tenant dispute can be raised only
The Civil Court passed the decree for possession before the Rent Tribunal but not before the civil court.
against the appellants on 28.5.2015 even though the However, a suit filed before the civil court prior to
Act became applicable to the area in question w.e.f. the applicability of the Act has to be decided by the
IN B R IE F
Birth certificate issued by corporation or municipal authority or panchayat is relevant document to
prove juvenility instead of school leaving record. Manoj @ Monu @ Vishal Chaudhary Vs. State of Haryana
& Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 207 of 2022 (SC).
Applications under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., 1973 are to be supported by affidavit duly sworn by
complainant who seeks invocation of jurisdiction of Magistrate. Babu Venkatesh & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka
& Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 252 of 2022 (SC).
Quantity of neutral substance is not to be excluded and to be taken into consideration along with
actual content of weight of offending drug while determining small and commercial quantities. State of Himachal
Pradesh Vs. Karuna Shanker Puri, Criminal Appeal No. 912 of 2010 (SC).
Section 17A of Prevention of Corruption Act not retrospective and not applicable to FIRs before 2018
amendment. State of Rajasthan Vs. Tejmal Choudhary, Criminal Appeal No. 1647 of 2021 (SC).
Proof of demand by bribe by public servant and its acceptance by him is sine quo non for establishing
offence under Section 7 of PC Act. K. Shanthamma Vs. State of Telangana, Criminal Appeal No. 261 of 2022
(SC).
Complaint filed by authorized person of company sufficient for Magistrate to take cognizance of
offence. M/s TRL Krosaki Refractories Ltd. Vs. M/s SMS Asia Private Ltd. & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 270
of 2022 (SC).
IN B R IE F
Prosecution required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, which it has done, and not beyond
all iota of doubt – Order of conviction proper. Karan Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., Criminal
Appeal No. 327 of 2022 (SC).
It would not be safe to uphold conviction on basis of recovery of stolen article. Tulesh Kumar Sahu
Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, Criminal Appeal No. 753 of 2021 (SC).
Merely because accused lost in elections that by itself cannot be categorized as motive to be foundation
for crime. Taqdir Vs. State of Haryana, Criminal Appeal No. 1537 of 2018 (SC).
Confiscation of truck when accused already acquitted in criminal prosecution, amounts to arbitrary
deprivation of property and violates right guaranteed to each person under Article 300A of Constitution of
India. Abdul Vahab Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 340 of 2022 (SC).
Complete absence of motive assumes different complexion and such absence definitely weighs in favour
of accused. Nandu Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh), Criminal Appeal No. 285 of 2022
(SC).
If criminal offence is distinctly remote and unconnected with common intention. Section 34 would not
be applicable. Krishnamurthy @ Gunodu & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka, Criminal Appeal No. 288 of 2022
(SC).
No evidence to establish that accused informed Bank about loss of cheque book containing blank
cheque – Accused has no case that signature on cheque on question was not put by him. Tedhi Singh Vs.
Narayan Dass Mahant, Criminal Appeal No. 362 of 2022 (SC).
Cancellation of regular bail – Court deciding bail application cannot completely divorce its decision
from material aspects of case. Kamla Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 342 of 2022
(SC).
High Court cannot issue direction that “no arrest” or “no coercive action” till final report is filed,
despite High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings. Priyanka Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.,
Criminal Appeal No. 292 of 2022 (SC).
IN B R IE F
Necessary for Magistrate, to have due regard to both initial report submitted under Section 173(2) as
well as supplementary report submitted after further investigation under Section 173(8) of Criminal Procedure
Code. Luckose Zachariah @ Zak Nedumchira Luke & Ors. Vs. Joseph Joseph & Ors., Criminal Appeal No.
256 of 2022 (SC).
Once established and proved that accused persons shared common intention, immaterial whether any
of accused who shared common intention used any weapon or not and/or any of them caused any injury on
deceased or not. State of MP Vs. Ramji Lal Sharma & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 293 of 2022 (SC).
Mere fact that view other than one taken by trial court can be legitimately arrived at by appellant
court on reappraisal of evidence cannot constitute valid and sufficient ground to interfere with order of acquittal.
Sanjeev & Anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 870 of 2016 (SC).
Crucial test has to be applied which is more than prima facie case as exercised at time of framing of
charge. Sagar Vs. State of UP & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 397 of 2022 (SC).
Mens rea or actus reus not essential element for imposing penalty/damages for breach of civil
obligations/liabilities. Horticulture Experiment Station Gonikoppal, Coorg Vs. Regional Provident Fund
Organization, Civil Appeal No. 2136 of 2012 (SC).
Employer’s preference for person with clean service record can be well appreciated. Rama Negi Vs.
Union of India & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 1713-1714 of 2022 (SC).
Not belonging to Scheduled Tribe community is crucial fact which deprives employer of any discretion
in matter of terminating her services. Jayashree Vs. Director Collegiate Education, Civil Appeal No. 1559 of
2022 (SC).
Functional loss of 100% of right upper limb and cannot perform job of driver forever – Reduction of
compensation set aside. Arjun S/o Ramanna @ Ramu Vs. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.,
Civil Appeal No. 1555 of 2022 (SC).
Dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement till date of his reinstatement, is to be treated as period
spent on duty and employee entitled for salary for period till reinstatement. Sukhdarshan Singh Vs. The State
of Punjab & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 811-812 of 2022 (SC).
"In a country, which follows the Rule of Law, independence of the judiciary is sacrosanct. There can be no
Rule of Law, there can be no democracy unless there is a strong, fearless and independent judiciary. This
independence and fearlessness is not only expected at the level of the Superior Courts but also from the
District Judiciary."
Deepak Gupta, J. in
Krishna Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar, Civil Appeal No. 8950 of 2011.
"In terms of Section 22(1) of the UGC Act, right to confer degrees can be exercised only by a university
established or incorporated by or under a Central Act. a Provincial Act or a State Act or by an institution
deemed to be a university under Section 3 of the UGC Act or by an institution specially empowered by an
Act of Parliament to confer or grant degrees. The intent of Parliament is clear that it is only that body
which is referred to in Section 22(1), that is competent to confer or grant degrees."
Uday U. Lalit, J. in
Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India) v. State of Punjab, Miscellaneous Application No. 2367 of 2018
in Civil Appeal No. 17922 of 2017.
"In the area of environmental governance, the means are as significant as the ends. The processes of
decision are as crucial as the ultimate decision. The basic postulate of the 2006 notification is that the path
which is prescribed for disclosures, studies, gathering data, consultation and appraisal is designed in a
manner that would secure decision-making which is transparent, responsive and inclusive."
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. in
Hanuman Laxman Aroskar Vs. Union of India, Civil Appeal No. 12251 of 2018.
"In the case in hand, there are allegations of laundering the proceeds of the crime. The Enforcement
Directorate claims to have certain specific inputs from various sources, including overseas banks. Letter
rogatory is also said to have been issued and some response have been received by the Department.
Having regard to the nature of allegations and the stage of the investigation, the investigating agency has
to be given sufficient freedom in the process of investigation. Considering the facts and circumstances of
the case, grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant [former Finance Minister of India] will hamper the
investigation and this is not a fit case for exercise of discretion to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant."
R. Banumathi, J. in
P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, Criminal Appeal No. 1340 of 2019.
"In the utilities, tax and economic regulation cases, there are good reasons for judicial self-restraint if not
judicial deference to legislative judgment. The legislature after all has the affirmative responsibility. The
"It is more than well settled that the exemption granted, even when the notification granting exemption
prescribes a particular period till which it is available, can be withdrawn by the State, if it is found that such
a withdrawal is in the public interest. In such a case, the larger public interest would outweigh the
individual interest, if any. In such a case, even the doctrine of promissory estoppels would not come to the
rescue of the persons claiming exemptions and compel the State not to resile from its promise, if the act of
the State is found to be in public interest to do so."
B.R. Gavai, J. in
Union of India Vs. M/s Unicorn Industries, Civil Appeal No. 7432 of 2019.
"In the practice of medicine, there could be varying approaches to treatment. There can be a genuine
difference of opinion. However, while adopting a course of treatment, the medical professional must ensure
that it is not unreasonable. The threshold to prove unreasonableness is set with due regard to the risks
associated with medical treatment and the conditions under which medical professionals function. This is to
avoid a situation where doctors resort to “defensive medicine” to avoid claims of negligence, often to the
detriment of the patient. Hence, in a specific case where unreasonableness in professional conduct has
been proven with regard to the circumstances of that case, a professional cannot escape liability for medical
evidence merely by relying on a body of professional opinion."
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. in
Arun Kumar Manglik Vs. Chirayu Health and Medicare Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., Civil Appeal
Nos. 227-228 of 2019.
"In the process of sentencing, any one factor, whether of extenuating circumstance or aggravating, cannot,
by itself, be decisive of the matter. In the same sequence, mere passage of time, by itself, cannot be a
clinching factor, though, in an appropriate case, it may be of some bearing, along with other relevant
factors. Moreover, when certain extenuating or mitigating circumstances are suggested on behalf of the
convict, the other factors relating to the nature of crime and its impact the social order and public interest
cannot be lost sight of."
Dinesh Maheshwari, J. in
State of M.P. v. Suresh, Criminal Appeal No. 319 of 2019.
"In the quest towards ensuring the rights guaranteed to every individual, a constitutional court such as
ours is faced with an additional task. Transformative adjudication must provide remedies in individual
instances that arise before the court. In addition, it must seek to recognise and transform the underlying
social and legal structures that perpetuate practices against the constitutional vision. Subjecting personal
laws to constitutional scrutiny is an important step in this direction."
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. in
Indian Young Lawyers Association Vs. State of Kerala & Ors., Writ Petition (C) No. 373 of 2006.
IN B R IE F
Child of second wife of employee cannot be denied compassionate appointment. Mukesh Kumar &
Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 1620 of 2022 (SC).
Jurisdiction of High Court to issue writ of quo warranto is a limited one, which can only be issued
when appointment is contrary to statutory rules. Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., Writ
Petition (Civil) No. 1525 of 2019 (SC).
Non disclosure of criminal case – Candidate juvenile on date when complaint made and discharged by
trial Judge not noticed by authorities while exercising its judicious discretion and no opportunity of hearing
granted – Cancellation of appointment set aside. Umesh Chandra Yadav Vs. Inspector General and Chief
Security Commissioner, RPF, Civil Appeal No. 1964 of 2022 (SC).
If employee is not at all at fault and kept out of work by reasons of decision taken by employer , denial
of fruits of her being vindicated at end of day would be unfair to employee. Gowramma C (Dead) by Lrs. Vs.
Manager (Personnel) Hindustan Aeronautical Ltd. & Anr., Civil Appeal Nos. 1575-1576 of 2022 (SC).
Liability to pay interest on amount of arrears/compensation be from date of accident and not from
date of order passed by Commissioner. Shobha & Ors. Vs. Chairman, Vithalrao Shinde Sahakari Sakhar
Karkhana Ltd. & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 1860 of 2022 (SC).
Suspension from service – Courts would not interfere unless grossly disporportionate. Union of India
& Ors. Vs. Managobinda Samantaray, Civil Appeal No.s 1622-1623 of 2022 (SC).
Seniority either inter se or between direct recruits and promotes or recruitment made by different
sources is being governed by statutory scheme of rules. M. Kendra Devi Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu &
Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 1918-1919 of 2022 (SC).
Employer has right to withhold payment of gratuity during pendency of disciplinary proceedings. The
Secretary, Local Self Government Department & Ors. Vs. K. Chandran, Civil Appeal No. 7437-7438 of 2021
(SC).
Discharge from service – Merely passing of wrong order does not warrant initiation of disciplinary
proceedings against judicial officer – Negligence cannot be treated to be misconduct. Abhay Jain Vs. High
Court of Judicature for Rajasthan & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 2029 of 2022 (SC).
Fixation of inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotes – Seniority of promotes functioning
in temporary posts not forming part of cadre, is to be fixed from date of promotion/appointment. B.S. Murthy
& Ors. Vs. A. Ravinder Singh & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 3968 of 2009 (SC).