Skip to main content

6 Important Supreme Court Judgments January 3, 2019

1. State of Jharkhand Department of Energy through Its Law Officer v. Surendra Kumar Srivastava

Electricity Act, 2003 - Section 67 - Board is statutorily empowered to undertake all actions necessary for transmission or supply of electricity, subject to the procedure under the Act.

Citations : AIR 2019 SC 231 : JT 2019 (1) SC 334 : 2019 (1) Scale 140
Case Number : C.A. No. 21 of 2019 03-01-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Devashish Bharuka
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan, Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indu Malhotra


2. Government of Haryana PWD Haryana (B and R) Branch v. M/s G. F. Toll Road Pvt. Ltd.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Ss. 15, 16 - Termination of mandate and substitution of arbitrator - Arbitrator’s relationship with the parties or counsel - The 1996 Act does not disqualify a former employee from acting as an arbitrator, provided that there are no justifiable doubts as to his independence and impartiality. The fact that the arbitrator was in the employment of the State of Haryana over 10 years ago, would make the allegation of bias clearly untenable.



Citations : JT 2019 (1) SC 1 : 2019 (1) Scale 134
Case Number : C.A. No. 27 of 2019 03-01-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Sanjay Kumar Visen
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indu Malhotra

3. Union of India v. Dr. O. P. Nijhawan

Service Law - Special pay is granted for specific purposes and in response to specific situation and circumstances.

Citations : JT 2019 (1) SC 152 : 2019 (1) SCALE 121
Case Number : C.A. No. 12040 of 2018 03-01-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Arvind Kumar Sharma
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao



4. Ravi Agrawal v. Union of India

Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 80DD - Deduction in respect of maintenance including medical treatment of a dependant who is a person with disability.

Section 80DD of the Act is a provision made by the Parliament under the Act in order to give incentive to the persons whose dependants are persons with disability. Incentive is to give such persons concessions in income tax by allowing deductions of the amount specified in Section 80DD of the Act in case such parents/guardians of dependants with disability take insurance policies of the nature specified in this provision. Purpose is to encourage these parents/guardians to make regular payments for the benefit of dependants with disability. In that sense, the Legislature, in its wisdom thought it appropriate to allow deductions in respect of such contribution made by the parent/guardian in the form of premium paid in respect of such insurance policies. Of course, this deduction is admissible only when conditions stipulated therein are satisfied.

Citations : AIR 2019 SC 318 : JT 2019 (1) SC 11 : 2019 (1) SCALE 111
Case Number : W.P. (C) No. 1107 of 2017 03-01-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Petitioner-in-person
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bushan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri

5. Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah v. The State of Gujarat

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 415 and 420 - The mere inability of the appellant to return the loan amount cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction, as it is this mens rea which is the crux of the offence.

Citations : 2019 (3) SCALE 298
Case Number : Crl.A. No. 9 of 2019 03-01-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Hemal Kiritkumar Sheth
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana

6. Nestle India Ltd. v. Union of India

Consumer Law - Directions for sampling the product “MAGGI Noodles” in nine variants for testing with reference to the quantity of lead and Mono Sodium Glutamate (MSG). Sampling and testing has been carried out under the auspices of CFTRI, Mysore. Since the complaint is pending, it would be inappropriate for this Court to preempt the exercise of jurisdiction by the NCDRC which is vested adjudicatory authority under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Citations : 2019 (1) Scale 418
Case Number : C.A. No. 14539 of 2015 03-01-2019
Bench : Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta
Judgement By: Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud

Labels:
Location: Tilak Marg, Supreme Court, Mandi House, New Delhi, Delhi 110201, India

Popular posts from this blog

Presumptions are the Bats of the Law, Flitting in the Twilight, but Disappearing in the Sunshine of Actual Facts [ORDER]

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 -  Section 138 -  failure on the part of the complainant to produce his account statement and absence of entry in accounts maintained by him regarding loan advanced to the accused, does show that there was no material to support the basic facts on which the entire case of the complainant was based. Sufficient material was available on record    whereby the defence of the accused became probable. In such a situation, the presumption under the provisions of the Act ceased to operate and the burden fell upon the complainant to prove his case, which he failed to do by placing on record cogent evidence.
Post a Comment
Read more

500+ Supreme Court of India Judgments on Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with Head Notes & Citations

1. Mallamma (dead) By Lrs. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [07-04-2014] 
2 comments
Read more

Adverse Possession | Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur, C.A. No. 7764 of 2014 07-08-2019 SC

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |  Arun Mishra , S. Abdul Nazeer & M.R. Shah C.A. No.7764 of 2014 with S.L.P. (C) Nos. 8332 - ­8333 of 2014 Radhakrishna Reddy (d) Through Lrs. v. G. Ayyavoo & Ors. August 07, 2019 Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 65 - Adverse Possession - Plea of acquisition of title by adverse possession can be taken by plaintiff under Article 65 of the Limitation Act and there is no bar under the Limitation Act, 1963 to sue on aforesaid basis in case of infringement of any rights of a plaintiff. A person in possession cannot be ousted by another person except by due procedure of law and once 12 years' period of adverse possession is over, even owner's right to eject him is lost and the possessory owner acquires right, title and interest possessed by the outgoing person/owner as the case may be against whom he has prescribed. In our opinion, consequence is that once the right, title or interest is acquired it can be used as a sword by the plaintiff as well...
Post a Comment
Read more