1. Raj Narain v. Union of India
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 409, 467 and 420 - Difference between initiation of the criminal proceedings by the department vis-a-vis a criminal case lodged by the police - Held, if an employee is involved in embezzlement of funds or is found indulging in demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, the employer cannot be mulcted with full back wages on the acquittal of the person by a criminal Court, unless it is found that the prosecution is malicious.
Case Number : C.A. No. 3339 of 2019 01-04-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Yash Pal Dhingra
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao
2. Board of Governors in Supersession of Medical Council of India v. National Institute of Medical Sciences and Research
The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 - Section 11 (2) - The direction to conduct an inspection within a period of one week ought not to have been passed by the High Court as the surprise element of the inspection would not be there.
Case Number : C.A. No. 3340 of 2019 01-04-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Gaurav Sharma
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao
3. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Akhilesh V.S.
Public Service Commission - Whether mere empanelment can justify a mandamus to make appointments because vacancies may exist - Held, mere existence of vacancies or empanelment does not create any indefeasible right to appointment.
Vacancy - Vacancies which may have arisen subsequently could not be clubbed with the earlier requisition and necessarily had to be part of another selection process.
The High Court has erred in issuance of mandamus to fill up a total of 97 vacancies, including those arising subsequently but during the life of the rank list. The employer also has the discretion not to fill up all requisitioned vacancies, but which has to be for valid and germane reasons not afflicted by arbitrariness. The appellant contends a financial crunch along with a skewed staff/bus ratio which are definitely valid and genuine grounds for not making further appointments. The court cannot substitute its views over that of the appellant, much less issue a mandamus imposing obligations on the appellant corporation which it is unable to meet.
Case Number : C.A. No. 3346 of 2019 01-04-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Deepak Prakash
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha
4. Tuticorin Port Democratic Staff Union v. Tuticorin Port Trust
Remand - the appellant has filed various documents in support of their appeal. The appellant filed these documents for the first time in this appeal. Though the writ court allowed the writ petition and the Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal resulting in passing conflicting orders, but the respective Courts rendered both the decisions without examining these documents. These documents are material for disposal of the writ petition filed by the appellant. It is for this reason the matter has to be remitted to the writ court for deciding the writ petition afresh on merits.
Case Number : C.A. No. 2289 of 2010 01-04-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Nikhil Nayyar
Respondent's Advocate : R. Nedumaran
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre
5. The State of Odisha v. Chandra Nandi
Practice and Procedure - Every judicial or/and quasijudicial order passed by the Court/Tribunal/Authority concerned, which decides the lis between the parties, must be supported with the reasons in support of its conclusion. The parties to the lis and so also the appellate/revisionary Court while examining the correctness of the order are entitled to know as to on which basis, a particular conclusion is arrived at in the order. In the absence of any discussion, the reasons and the findings on the submissions urged, it is not possible to know as to what led the Court/Tribunal/Authority for reaching to such conclusion.
Referred Cases
- State of Maharashtra v. Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan, (1981) 4 SCC 129
- Jawahar Lal Singh vs. Naresh Singh & Ors., (1987) 2 SCC 222
- State of U.P. v. Battan, (2001) 10 SCC 607
- Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar, (2003) 11 SCC 519
- State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar, (2004) 5 SCC 568
Case Number : C.A. No. 10690 of 2017 01-04-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Som Raj Choudhury
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre
6. Mani v. The State of Kerala
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Political Enmity - In view of sudden fight without any premeditation, the conviction of the appellant for an offence under Section 302 is not made out. The cause of death of the deceased is knife blow on the chest of the deceased-S. Such injury is with the knowledge that such injury is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death. Thus, the death of S is a culpable homicide not amounting to murder as the death has occurred in heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel falling within Exception 4 of Section 300 of IPC. Therefore, it is an offence punishable under Section 304 Part I, IPC.
Case Number : Crl.A. No. 540 of 2019 01-04-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Senthil Jagadeesan
Respondent's Advocate : Nishe Rajen Shonker
Bench : Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta