1. State of Manipur v. Takhelmayum Khelendro Meitei
Employment Law - there is no indefeasible right for appointment merely because a candidate is found fit on the basis of a selection. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, the State does not have any license to act in an arbitrary manner and that the decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons.
Referred Case
- Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47
Issues
(i) Whether the Respondents have any indefeasible right for appointment to the posts of Assistant Lineman on the basis of the selections made in the year 1999?
The Respondents do not have a legal right to seek appointment to the posts of Assistant Lineman as the selections stood cancelled by the policy decision dated 19th March, 2001.
(ii) Whether the High Court could have issued a direction for appointment of the Respondents as Junior System Assistants in the posts advertised on 11th May, 2016 ?
Unable to agree with the High Court’s direction for appointment of the Respondents in the posts of Junior System Assistants which were advertised in 2016.
Citations : 2019 (2) SCALE 1
Case Number : C.A. No. 842 - 843 of 2019 17-01-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Ashok Kumar Singh
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.A. Bobde, Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Subhash Reddy
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao
2. Indian Hotel and Restaurant Association (Ahar) General Secretary v. State of Maharashtra Home Department Secretary Home Affairs
The Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14, 15, 19 (1)(a), 19 (1)(g) and 21 - The Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels, Restaurant and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women (Working therein) Act, 2016 - The Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels, Restaurant and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women (Working therein) Rules, 2016.
The present legislation is given a cloak of bringing regulatory regime to regulate the places where there are dance performances. For this purpose, the impugned Act does not permit dance performances without obtaining licence under Section 3 of the Act. Further, it makes obscene dances as penal offence. No quarrel on this. However, at the 99 same time, many conditions are stipulated for obtaining the licence, which are virtually impossible to perform. It is this reason that not a single establishment has been issued licence under the impugned Act even when it was passed in the year 2014. In fact, after the amendment in Maharashtra Police Act in 2005, no licences have been granted for dance bars. Thus, even when the impugned Act appears to be regulatory in nature, the real consequences and effect is to prohibit such dance bars. The State, thereby, is aiming to achieve something indirectly which it could not do directly. Such a situation is beyond comprehension and cannot be countenanced. We have quashed those provisions of the Act and the Rules which we have found as unreasonable and unconstitutional. We hope that applications for grant of licence shall now be considered more objectively and with open mind so that there is no complete ban on staging dance performances at designated places prescribed in the Act. The writ petitions stand partly allowed and are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Citations : AIR 2019 SC 589 : JT 2019 (1) SC 271 : 2019 (1) SCALE 433
Case Number : W.P. (C) No. 576 of 2016 17-01-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : V.D. Khanna
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. K. Sikri, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. K. Sikri
3. Yogendra @ Jogendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 326 (A) and 460 - Death Sentence - ‘special reasons’ - The term ‘special reasons’ undoubtedly means reasons that are one of a special kind and not general reasons.
The incident is related to the appellant being disappointed in his relation with the deceased who he believed deserted him. The circumstance of the case and particularly the choice of acid do not disclose a cold-blooded plan to murder the deceased. Like in many cases the intention seems to have been to severely injure or disfigure the deceased; in this case we think the intention resulted into an attack more severe than planned which then resulted in the death of the deceased. It is possible that what was premeditated was an injury and not death. There is no particular depravity or brutality in the acts of the Appellant that warrants a classification of this case as ‘rarest of the rare’. Therefore, the sentence of death imposed by the High Court is set aside and instead the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for life.
Citations : JT 2019 (1) SC 373 : 2019 (1) Scale 495
Case Number : Crl.A. No. 84 - 85 of 2019 17-01-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Minakshi Vij
Respondent's Advocate : Arjun Garg
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.A. Bobde, Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Subhash Reddy
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.A. Bobde
4. Raju Jagdish Paswan v. State of Maharashtra
Death Sentence - A death sentence can be imposed only when the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed.
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302, 376, 201 - The Appellant dragged a girl of nine years into a sugarcane field, raped her and dumped her in a well. The cause of death according to the medical evidence was signs of recent sexual intercourse with death due to drowning. There is no doubt that the murder involves exceptional depravity which is one of the aggravating circumstances. The manner of commission of the crime is extremely brutal. However, the Appellant does not deserve the sentence of death in view of the following mitigating circumstances: a) On a thorough examination of the offence, we are unable to accept the prosecution version that the murder was committed in a pre-planned manner. b) The Appellant was a young man aged 22 years at the time of commission of the offence. c) There is no evidence produced by the prosecution that the Appellant has the propensity of committing further crimes, causing a continuing threat to the society. d) The State did not bring on record any evidence to show that the Appellant cannot be reformed and rehabilitated. In view of the above, we are unable to agree with the courts below that the sentence of death is appropriate in this case.
Penal Law - The maintenance of peace, order and security is one of the oldest functions of the civil society. The imposition of penal sanctions on those who have infringed the rules by which a society has bound itself are a matter of legitimate interest to the members of the society. Punishment is the just desert of an offender. The society punishes not because it has the moral right to give offenders what they deserve, but also because punishment will yield social useful consequences: the protection of society by incapacitating criminals, the rehabilitation of past offenders, or the deterrence of potential wrongdoers. The purposes of criminal sentencing have traditionally been said to be retribution, deterrence and rehabilitation. To these there may now perhaps be added: incapacitation (i.e. putting it out of the power of the offender to commit further offences) and the maintenance of public confidence.
Citations : AIR 2019 SC 897 : 2019 (1) SCALE 735
Case Number : Crl.A. No. 88 - 89 of 2019 17-01-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Amit Sharma
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.A. Bobde, Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Subhash Reddy
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao
5. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan University v. Union of India
Contempt of Court - Apology is an act of contrition. Unless apology is offered at the earliest opportunity and in good grace, the apology is shorn of penitence and hence it is liable to be rejected. If the apology is offered at the time when the contemnor finds that the court is going to impose punishment it ceases to be an apology and becomes an act of a cringing coward.
(i) Mr. S.S. Kushwaha, Dean of the R.K.D.F. Medical College Hospital and Research Centre i.e. Petitioner No.2- herein is liable for prosecution under Section 193 IPC. The Secretary General of this Court is directed to depute an Officer to initiate the prosecution in a competent Court having jurisdiction at Delhi.
(ii) The College is barred from making admissions for the 1st Year MBBS course for the next two years i.e. 2018-19 and 2019- 2020.
(iii) A penalty of Rs. Five Crores is imposed on the College for playing fraud on this Court. The amount may be paid to the account of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.
(iv) The students are entitled to receive the refund of fee paid by them for admission to the College for the academic year 2017- 19. In addition, the College is directed to pay a compensation of Rs. One Lakh to the said students.
The Writ Petition is dismissed accordingly.
Citations : 2019 (1) SCALE 700
Case Number : W.P. (C) No. 1001 of 2017 17-01-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Amalpushp Shroti
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.A. Bobde, Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Subhash Reddy
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao
6. Himanshu v. B. Shivamurthy
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 138 and 141 - the cheque was drawn by the accused for Lakshmi Cement and Ceramics Industries Ltd., as its Director - A notice of demand was served only on the accused - The complaint was lodged only against the accused without arraigning the company as an accused - In the absence of the company being arraigned as an accused, a complaint against the director was therefore not maintainable.
In the present case, the record before the Court indicates that the cheque was drawn by the appellant for Lakshmi Cement and Ceramics Industries Ltd., as its Director. A notice of demand was served only on the appellant. The complaint was lodged only against the appellant without arraigning the company as an accused. The provisions of Section 141 postulate that if the person committing an offence under Section 138 is a company, every person, who at the time when the offence was committed was in charge of or was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished. In the absence of the company being arraigned as an accused, a complaint against the appellant was therefore not maintainable. The appellant had signed the cheque as a Director of the company and for and on its behalf. Moreover, in the absence of a notice of demand being served on the company and without compliance with the proviso to Section 138, the High Court was in error in holding that the company could now be arraigned as an accused. We, accordingly, are of the view that the High Court was in erorr in rejecting the petition under Section 482 of the CrPC. We hence allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court. In consequence, the complaint, being C.R.P No. 27/2004 shall stand quashed.
Citations : 2019 (2) SCALE 100
Case Number : Crl.A. No. 1465 of 2009 17-01-2019
For Appellant(s) : Rohan Thawani, Adv. Mr. Prashant Kumar, AOR Dhawesh Pahuja, Adv. Joseph Pookkatt, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : V.N. Raghupathy, AOR Parikshit P. Angadi, Adv. Md. Apzal Ansari, Adv.
Bench : Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta
Judgment By : Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud
7. State of Himachal Pradesh v. Parkash Chand
Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - The High Court has virtually re-written the terms of the policy and has issued a direction to the State to consider applications which do not fulfill the terms of the policy. This is impermissible.
Citations : 2019 (2) SCALE 506
Case Number : C.A. No. 977 of 2019 17-01-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Abhinav Mukerji
Bench : Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta
Judgment By : Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud
8. Mohammed Shamsuddin v. State of Rajasthan
Parole - the petitioner is in custody for more than 24 years - granted.
Citations : 2019 (1) Scale 560
Case Number : W.P. (Crl.) No. 235 of 2018 17-01-2019
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph, JJ.
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit