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

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. 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

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. 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

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan

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

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