10 Important Supreme Court Judgments January 2018 Part 9

1. Alakh Alok Srivastava v. Union of India [31/01/2018]

Rape committed on a girl child - Eight months’ old female child has been sexually assaulted - directed AIIMS to send two doctors to visit the child in the hospital and assess if the she can be shifted to premier medical facility.

Judgment Link : http://bit.ly/8MonthOldGirl

Citations : 2018 (1) Scale 589

2. Ashish Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh [31/01/2018]

Employment Law - When there is variance in the advertisement and in the statutory rules, it is statutory rules which take precedence.

Judgment Link : http://bit.ly/2EbmS7D

Citations : JT 2018 (2) SC 249 : 2018 (1) Scale 608

3. Commissioner Of Income Tax 5, Mumbai v. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. Thr. Its Manager [31/01/2018]

Income Tax Act 1961 - Whether subsection (2) and subsection (3) of Section 14A inserted with effect from 01.04.2007 will apply to all pending assessments? Whether Rule 8D is retrospectively applicable?

Judgment Link : http://bit.ly/2GLgRE9

Citations : JT 2018 (2) SC 44 : 2018 (1) Scale 681

4. Rambeer Shokeen v. State of Nct of Delhi [31/01/2018]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - S. 167(2) - Statutory Bail - Application for extension of time to file chargesheet - Right to grant of statutory bail would have enured to the accused only after rejection of the request for extension of time prayed by the Additional Public Prosecutor.

Judgment Link : http://bit.ly/StatutoryBail

Citations : AIR 2018 SC 688 : JT 2018 (2) SC 229 : 2018 (1) Scale 590

5. Union of India v. Jarooparam [31/01/2018]

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - S. 52A - Disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances - Omission on the part of the prosecution to produce the bulk quantity of seized opium would create a doubt in the mind of Court on the genuineness of the samples drawn and marked from the allegedly seized contraband - the same had been destroyed, cannot be accepted as it is not clear that on what authority it was done - Law requires that such an authority must flow from an order passed by the Magistrate.

Judgement Link : http://bit.ly/2GPyxhQ

Citations : 2018 (3) Scale 628

6. Yogesh Mahajan v. Prof. R.C. Deka, Director, All India Institute Of Medical Sciences [31/01/2018]

Labour Law - No contract employee has a right to have his or her contract renewed from time to time.

Judgement Link : http://bit.ly/ContractEmployee

Citations : JT 2018 (2) SC 1 : 2018 (1) Scale 577

7. Authorized Officer, State Bank Of Travancore v. Mathew K.C. [30/01/2018]

SARFAESI Act - The writ petition ought not to have been entertained and the interim order granted for the mere asking without assigning special reasons, and that too without even granting opportunity to the Appellant to contest the maintainability of the writ petition and failure to notice the subsequent developments in the interregnum.

Judgement Link : http://bit.ly/SARFAESIAct

Citations : AIR 2018 SC 676 : JT 2018 (2) SC 3 : 2018 (1) Scale 618

8. Bhausaheb v. State of Maharashtra [30/01/2018]

Anticipatory Bail - Denial of protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by the High Court. - Investigation is in progress and the same is yet to be completed - bail granted - Accused shall cooperate with the investigation.

Judgement Link : http://bit.ly/AnticipatoryBail

Citations : JT 2018 (3) SC 262 : 2018 (3) Scale 262

9. Latesh @ Dadu Baburao Karlekar v. State of Maharashra [30/01/2018]

Criminal Trial - Merely because the names of the accused are not stated and their names are not specified in the FIR that may not be a ground to doubt the contents of the FIR and the case of the prosecution cannot be thrown out on this count.

Judgement Link : http://bit.ly/NoNameInFIR

Citations : AIR 2018 SC 659 : JT 2018 (2) SC 27 : 2018 (1) Scale 626

10. Shafhi Mohammad v. State Of Himachal Pradesh [30/01/2018]

Electronic Evidence - Legal position on the subject on the admissibility of the electronic evidence, especially by a party who is not in possession of device from which the document is produced - Such party cannot be required to produce certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act. The applicability of requirement of certificate being procedural can be relaxed by Court wherever interest of justice so justifies.

Judgement Link : http://bit.ly/ElectronicEvidence

Citations AIR 2018 SC 714 : JT 2018 (2) SC 277 : 2018 (2) Scale 235

Whether Plaint can be Rejected only against one of the Defendant(s) [SC JUDGMENT]

The Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 7 Rule 11 (d) – Rejection of Plaint - Relief of reject the plaint only against one of the defendant(s) – Held, Such a relief “cannot be entertained” in exercise of power under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC - the relief of rejection of plaint in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC cannot be pursued only in respect of one of the defendant(s) - the plaint has to be rejected as a whole or not at all, in exercise of power Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC - the plaint as presented must proceed as a whole or can be rejected as a whole but not in part.

FIRST LAW

Search This Blog