10 Important Supreme Court Judgments April 2, 2019

1. National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120B, 121 and 121A - The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Sections 13, 16, 17, 18, 20, 38, 39 and 40 - Application for Bail.

Case Number : Crl.A. No. 578 of 2019 02-04-2019

Petitioner's Advocate : B.V. Balaram Das

Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar

2. Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - The Banking Regulation Act, 1949 - Sections 35AA and 35AB - Constitutional Validity of - Circular issued on 12.02.2018, by Reserve Bank of India (RBI) - Revised framework for resolution of stressed assets - the impugned circular is ultra vires Section 35AA of the Banking Regulation Act.

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - The Banking Regulation Act, 1949 - Sections 35AA and 35AB - Constitutional Validity of - the RBI can only direct banking institutions to move under the Insolvency Code if two conditions precedent are specified, namely, (i) that there is a Central Government authorisation to do so; and (ii) that it should be in respect of specific defaults. The Section, therefore, by necessary implication, prohibits this power from being exercised in any manner other than the manner set out in Section 35AA.

Section 35AA makes it clear that the Central Government may, by order, authorise the RBI to issue directions to any banking company or banking companies when it comes to initiating the insolvency resolution process under the provisions of the Insolvency Code. The first thing to be noted is that without such authorisation, the RBI would have no such power. There are many sections in the Banking Regulation Act which enumerate the powers of the Central Government vis-à-vis the powers of the RBI. The Banking Regulation Act specifies that the Central Government is either to exercise powers along with the RBI or by itself. The role assigned, 65 therefore, by Section 35AA, when it comes to initiating the insolvency resolution process under the Insolvency Code, is thus, important. Without authorisation of the Central Government, obviously, no such directions can be issued. [Para 29]

The Banking Regulation Act, 1949 - Section 36ACA - Supersession of Board of Directors in certain cases - the RBI’s satisfaction in superseding the board of directors of banking companies can only be exercised in consultation with the Central Government, and not otherwise.

The Banking Regulation Act, 1949 - Sections 36AE and 36AF - Power of Central Government to acquire undertakings of banking companies in certain cases - Power of the Central Government to make scheme - the Central Government alone has the power to acquire undertakings of banking companies in certain cases, on receipt of a report from the RBI - the Central Government may, after consulting the RBI, make a scheme for carrying out the purpose of acquisition of such undertakings of banking companies.

If a specific provision of the Banking Regulation Act makes it clear that the RBI has a specific power to direct banks to move under the Insolvency Code against debtors in certain specified circumstances, it cannot be said that they would be acting outside the four corners of the statutes which govern them, namely, the RBI Act and the Banking Regulation Act. [Para 26]

Scheme of Sections 35A, 35AA, and 35AB

(a) When it comes to issuing directions to initiate the insolvency resolution process under the Insolvency Code, Section 35AA is the only source of power. 

(b) When it comes to issuing directions in respect of stressed assets, which directions are directions other than resolving this problem under the Insolvency Code, such power falls within Section 35A read with Section 35AB. This also becomes clear from the fact that Section 35AB(2) enables the RBI to specify one or more authorities or committees to advise any banking company on resolution of stressed assets. This advice is obviously de hors the Insolvency Code, as once an application is made under the Insolvency Code, such advice would be wholly redundant, as the Insolvency Code provisions would then take over and have to be followed.

Case Number : T.C. (C) No. 66 of 2018 02-04-2019

Petitioner's Advocate : By Courts Motion

Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman

3. Vinod Verma v. Union of India

Service Law - In the absence of any express provision in the rules, no promotion or seniority can be granted from a retrospective date when the employee has not been born in the cadre.

Case Number : C.A. No. 14967 of 2017 02-04-2019

Petitioner's Advocate : Christi Jain

Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan

4. Pawan Kumar v. Babulal Since Deceased Through Lrs

Case Number : C.A. No. 3367 of 2019 02-04-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Abhishek Gupta
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indu Malhotra
Judgment By : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indu Malhotra

5. Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. v. Govindan Raghavan

The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 2 (r), 23 - ‘unfair trade practices’ - A term of a contract will not be final and binding if it is shown that the flat purchasers had no option but to sign on the dotted line, on a contract framed by the builder. 


The contractual terms of the Agreement dated 08.05.2012 are ex-facie one-sided, unfair, and unreasonable. The incorporation of such one-sided clauses in an agreement constitutes an unfair trade practice as per Section 2 (r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 since it adopts unfair methods or practices for the purpose of selling the flats by the Builder.

The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 2 (r), 23 - ‘unfair trade practices’ - The terms of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement were wholly one-sided and unfair to the Flat Purchaser. The Builder could not seek to bind the Flat Purchaser with such one-sided contractual terms.

Case Number : C.A. No. 12238 of 2018 02-04-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : T.V.S. Raghavendra Sreyas
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indu Malhotra
Judgment By : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indu Malhotra

6. Anant Shankar Bhave v. Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation

The appellant has filed a misconceived suit and claimed interfere on the suit land and nor had any right to construct any road or any type of construction without following a due process of law on the suit land. First, the appellant was required to prove his ownership over the suit land qua the respondent; Second, he was required to prove that the respondent has either entered on the suit land or is trying to enter upon the suit land with a view to construct the road on his land or is intending to make some construction without following the due process of law in acquiring the suit land and paying adequate compensation to the appellant for the suit land. The appellant, however, did not come to the Court for claiming the aforementioned reliefs and nor he proved the aforementioned facts and instead claimed improper reliefs as mentioned above. In our view, the proper reliefs, which we have set out above alone, could have settled the controversy in relation to the suit land between the parties and not the one raised in these proceedings. We also find that these issues were not tried in these proceedings for want of proper pleadings and the evidence. It is for these reasons, though we are inclined to dismiss the appeal finding no merit therein but grant liberty to the appellant (plaintiff) to file a fresh civil suit against the respondent to claim the proper reliefs in relation to the suit land, which we have mentioned above, by properly pleading and adducing evidence in support of his case in accordance with law. We, however, make it clear that while trying the suit, the findings recorded by the Courts below in the present proceedings will not come against any party and nor will operate res judicata against any party. In other words, the issues raised in the fresh suit will be tried independently on the basis of the pleadings and evidence adduced therein.


Case Number : C.A. No. 3368 of 2019 02-04-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Bhave and Associates
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre

7. Devendra Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar

The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - The Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323, 341, 379 and 504 - The High Court quashed the complaint essentially on two grounds; First, no sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C was obtained by the prosecution for filing the complaint against respondent No. 2 and the second, there are contradictions in the statement of the complainant and the witnesses. In our view, both the grounds, which found favour with the High Court for quashing the complaint, are not well founded and hence legally unsustainable.


The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - the High Court while hearing the application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. had no jurisdiction to appreciate the statement of the witnesses and record a finding that there were inconsistencies in their statements - this could be done only in the trial while deciding the issues on the merits or/and by the Appellate Court while deciding the appeal arising out of the final order passed by the Trial Court but not in Section 482 Cr.P.C. proceedings.

The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 197 - Sanction - In order to attract the rigor of Section 197 of the Cr.P.C., it is necessary that the offence alleged against a Government Officer must have some nexus or/and relation with the discharge of his official duties as a Government Officer.

Case Number : Crl.A. No. 579 of 2019 02-04-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Amit Pawan
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre

8. S. Ramesh v. State Rep. By Inspector of Police

The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - The High Court after recalling the orders should have fixed the three criminal original petitions for their final hearing on merits. Instead of doing that, the High Court, on the one hand, restored the cases and, on the other hand, dismissed them also. This approach of the High Court was not legal and hence to that extent, the impugned order of the High Court deserves to be set aside.


Case Number : Crl.A. No. 583 of 2019 02-04-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Vijay Kumar
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre

9. Nagar Ayukt Nagar Nigam v. Sri Mujibullah Khan

The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - The Act is applicable to the Municipalities.

Case Number : C.A. No. 2628 of 2017 02-04-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : S.R. Setia
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta

10. Nagar Nigam, Gorakhpur v. Shri Ram Shanker Yadav

The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - The entire argument of the appellant is that the State Act confers restrictive benefit of gratuity than what is conferred under the Central Act. Such argument is not tenable in view of Section 14 of the Act and that liberal payment of gratuity is in fact in the interest of the employees. Thus, the gratuity would be payable under the Act. Such is the view taken by the Controlling Authority

Case Number : C.A. No. 2629 of 2017 02-04-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Sunil Kumar Verma
Respondent's Advocate : Aniruddha P. Mayee
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta