26 Important Supreme Court Judgments April 9, 2019

1. Sampat Babso Kale v. The State of Maharashtra

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 / 498A read with Section 34 - Dying Declaration - A dying declaration is an extremely important piece of evidence and where the Court is satisfied that the dying declaration is truthful, voluntary and not a result of any extraneous influence, the Court can convict the accused only on the basis of a dying declaration.

Murder Trial - Mangalsutra, peinjan and even glass bangles are such ornaments which an Indian married woman would normally not remove. In Indian society these are normally worn by the ladies all the times. Therefore, the defence version that the deceased took off all these ornaments and then went to the kitchen and committed suicide cannot be totally ruled out. [Para 18]

Evidence Law - Witness - Neighbour - None of the witnesses from the neighbourhood have been examined. Even as per the prosecution case it was the neighbours who first raised an alarm. There is no explanation why none of them have been examined. It is also the prosecution case that the accused husband along with another neighbour went to the hospital to arrange for an ambulance. This person has not been examined. The non­-examination of these important witnesses leads to non-­corroboration of the dying declaration. The best witnesses would have been the neighbours who reached the spot immediately after the occurrence. They would have been the best persons to state as to whether the victim told them anything about the occurrence or not. [Para 19]

Case Number : Crl.A. No. 694 - 695 of 2011 09-04-2019

Petitioner's Advocate : Uday B. Dube

Respondent's Advocate : Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar

Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.A. Bobde, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta

2. Peer Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 read with Section 149 and 148 - There is no plausible explanation given from the side of prosecution as to why the names of these three accused were missing both in the “Dehati Nalishi” as well as in the statement of Mansingh recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Therefore, a grave doubt is raised with regard to the presence of these three accused at the place of incidence. The benefit of doubt obviously has to go to the accused.

Case Number : Crl.A. No. 743 of 2012 09-04-2019

Petitioner's Advocate : Pratibha Jain

Respondent's Advocate : C.D. Singh

Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.A. Bobde, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta

3. Gajraj Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Case Number : Crl.A. No. 744 of 2012 09-04-2019

Petitioner's Advocate : Pallavi Pratap

Respondent's Advocate : C.D. Singh

Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.A. Bobde, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta

4. Bhagwansingh @ Bhaggu v. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Case Number : Crl.A. No. 746 of 2012 09-04-2019

Petitioner's Advocate : Pallavi Pratap

Respondent's Advocate : C.D. Singh

Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.A. Bobde, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta

5. M/s. D.J. Malpani v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik

The Central Excise Act, 1944 - Whether the amount included as Dharmada by a manufacturer and credited for charitable purposes is liable to be included in the assessable value of manufactured goods; the seller having merely acted as conduit between the purchaser and charity.

Case Number : C.A. No. 5282 of 2005 09-04-2019

Petitioner's Advocate : Praveen Kumar

Respondent's Advocate : B. Krishna Prasad

Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.A. Bobde, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Hon'ble Ms. Justice Vineet Saran

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.A. Bobde

6. M/s Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. v. Mandala Yadagari Goud

The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - In the case of a motor accident where there is death of a person, who is a bachelor, whether the age of the deceased or the age of the dependents would be taken into account for calculating the multiplier. Held, it is the age of the deceased which has to be taken into account and not the age of the dependents.

Case Number : C.A. No. 6600 of 2015 09-04-2019

Petitioner's Advocate : G. Balaji

Respondent's Advocate : Arvind S. Avhad

Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.A. Bobde, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul

7. Caretel Infotech Ltd. v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited

Tender - Promptness and efficiency levels in private contracts often tend to make the tenders of the public sector a non-competitive exercise. This works to a great disadvantage to the Government and the Public Sector.

Case Number : C.A. No. 3588 of 2019 09-04-2019

Petitioner's Advocate : Jinendra Jain

Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.A. Bobde, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul

8. Rupali Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 498A - the courts at the place where the wife takes shelter after leaving or driven away from the matrimonial home on account of acts of cruelty committed by the husband or his relatives, would, dependent on the factual situation, also have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint alleging commission of offences under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

Case Number : Crl.A. No. 71 of 2012 09-04-2019

Petitioner's Advocate : Ajay Kumar Srivastava

Respondent's Advocate : Praveen Chaturvedi

Bench : Hon'ble The Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Judgment By : Hon'ble The Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi

9. Mahendra Prasad Mehta v. The State of Bihar

Case Number : Crl.A. No. 623 of 2019 09-04-2019

Petitioner's Advocate : K. Sarada Devi

Bench : Hon'ble The Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Judgment By : Hon'ble The Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi

10. Afsar Ali Khan v. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Case Number : Crl.A. No. 619 of 2019 09-04-2019

Petitioner's Advocate : Raj Kishor Choudhary

Respondent's Advocate : Mishra Saurabh

Bench : Hon'ble The Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Judgment By : Hon'ble The Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi

11. Braj Kishore Prasad @ Suraj Prasad v. The State of Bihar

Case Number : Crl.A. No. 621 of 2019 09-04-2019

Petitioner's Advocate : Subhro Sanyal

Respondent's Advocate : Abha R. Sharma

Bench : Hon'ble The Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Judgment By : Hon'ble The Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi

12. Neetu Arora v. Vikram Arora

Case Number : Crl.A. No. 620 of 2019 09-04-2019

Petitioner's Advocate : Shalu Sharma

Respondent's Advocate : Ugra Shankar Prasad

Bench : Hon'ble The Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Judgment By : Hon'ble The Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi

13. Mahendra Prasad Mehata v. Parmila Devi

Case Number : Crl.A. No. 622 of 2019 09-04-2019

Petitioner's Advocate : Revathy Raghavan

Respondent's Advocate : Sunil Kumar Verma

Bench : Hon'ble The Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Judgment By : Hon'ble The Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi

14. Jagdish Prasad Patel (d) Thr. Lrs. v. Shivnath

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1973 - Under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, production of additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, is permitted only under three circumstances which are: (I) Where the trial Court had refused to admit the evidence though it ought to have been admitted; (II) the evidence was not available to the party despite exercise of due diligence; and (III) the appellate Court required the additional evidence so as to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause of like nature. An application for production of additional evidence cannot be allowed if the appellant was not diligent in producing the relevant documents in the lower court. However, in the interest of justice and when satisfactory reasons are given, court can receive additional documents.

Case Number : C.A. No. 2176 of 2007 09-04-2019

Petitioner's Advocate : Birendra Kumar Mishra

Respondent's Advocate : Manjeet Kirpal

Bench : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Subhash Reddy

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi

15. Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa

The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 118, 138 and 139 - Presumptions as to negotiable instruments - Presumption in favour of holder - Legal principles regarding nature of presumptions to be drawn under Section 139 of the Act and the manner in which it can be rebutted by an accused - The complainant being holder of cheque and the signature on the cheque having not been denied by the accused, presumption shall be drawn that cheque was issued for the discharge of any debt or other liability. The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption.

The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 118 and 139 - General principles pertaining to burden of proof on an accused especially in a case where some statutory presumption regarding guilt of the accused has to be drawn.

Principles 

(i) Once the execution of cheque is admitted Section 139 of the Act mandates a presumption that the cheque was for the discharge of any debt or other liability.

(ii) The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption and the onus is on the accused to raise the probable defence. The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities. 

(iii) To rebut the presumption, it is open for the accused to rely on evidence led by him or accused can also rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise a probable defence. Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which they rely. 

(iv) That it is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box in support of his defence, Section 139 imposed an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden. 

(v) It is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box to support his defence.

Case Number : Crl.A. No. 636 of 2019 09-04-2019

Petitioner's Advocate : S.N. Bhat

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

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan

16. Palakom Abdul Rahiman v. The Station House Officer

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 34 - Common Intention - The true purport of Section 34 IPC is that if two or more persons intentionally do an act jointly, the position of law is just the same as if each of them have done it individually. The process of law is intended to meet a situation in which it may be difficult to distinguish between acts of individual members of a party who act in furtherance of the common intention.

The application of principles enunciated in Section 34 IPC, when an accused is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, in law means that the accused is liable for the act which caused death of the deceased in the same manner as if it was done by him alone.

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 34 & 149 - Scope of  - It would depend on facts of each case as to whether Section 34 or Section 149 or both the provisions are attracted. The non­-applicability of Section 149 IPC is no bar in convicting the accused persons under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC provided there is evidence which discloses commission of offence in furtherance of common intention. 

Case Number : Crl.A. No. 725 of 2012 09-04-2019

Petitioner's Advocate : P.V. Dinesh

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

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi

17. Smt. P. Leelavathi (d) By Lrs. v. V. Shankarnarayana Rao (d) By Lrs.

The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 - Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and merely because some financial assistance has been given by the father to the sons to purchase the properties, can the transactions be said to benami in nature ?

While considering whether a particular transaction is benami in nature, the following six circumstances can be taken as a guide: 

(1) the source from which the purchase money came; 

(2) the nature and possession of the property, after the purchase; 

(3) motive, if any, for giving the transaction a benami colour; 

(4) the position of the parties and the relationship, if any, between the claimant and the alleged benamidar; 

(5) the custody of the title deeds after the sale; and 

(6) the conduct of the parties concerned in dealing with the property after the sale.

Case Number : C.A. No. 1099 of 2008 09-04-2019

Petitioner's Advocate : V.N. Raghupathy

Respondent's Advocate : Anjana Chandrashekar

Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah

18. Shriram Tomar & Anr. Etc. v. Praveen Kumar Jaggi

Service Law - The Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 - Section 29 - The Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and other Employees) Rules, 1998 - Promotion - As the promotion to the post of Junior Management Scale II shall be made on the basis of seniority­-cum­merit, the only requirement would be that after it is found that the candidates have possessed the minimum necessary merit, namely, minimum 40% qualifying marks in the written test and minimum 12 marks each out of 20 marks each in interview and the performance appraisal reports respectively, thereafter the candidates are required to be promoted in the order of seniority, irrespective of anyone among them having obtained more marks.

Case Number : C.A. No. 3603 - 3607 of 2019 09-04-2019

Petitioner's Advocate : Rajeev Singh

Respondent's Advocate : Shiv Sagar Tiwari

Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah

19. Food Corporation of India v. Rimjhim

Service Law - the Division Bench has rightly set aside the action of the FCI in rejecting the case of the original writ petitioner and has rightly directed the FCI to consider the case of the original writ petitioner for appointment on merits, if all other conditions stand satisfied.

Case Number : C.A. No. 3600 of 2019 09-04-2019

Petitioner's Advocate : Ajit Pudussery

Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah

20. Sham Lal v. State of Haryana

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 read with Section 34 & Sections 304B and 498A - An acquittal by the trial court should not be interfered with unless it is totally perverse or wholly unsustainable.

Criminal Law - Possibility of another view cannot be a ground for reversing acquittal by the Appellate Court.

There is no perversity in the judgment of the trial court in its finding that the prosecution was unable to prove cruelty on the part of the Appellant and the other accused. The High Court committed an error in reaching a different conclusion regarding the cruelty by observing that there was a demand of Rs.1,00,000/- by the Appellant pursuant to which Rs.50,000/- was paid by the family members of the deceased. The High Court went wrong in upsetting the findings of the trial court regarding payment of dowry. Possibility of another view cannot be a ground for reversing acquittal by the Appellate Court. That apart, the conclusion arrived at by the High Court is completely contrary to the record.

Case Number : Crl.A. No. 1013 - 1014 of 2008 09-04-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Ajay Choudhary
Respondent's Advocate : Monika Gusain
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao

21. Union of India v. Major General Arun Roye

Army Law - the Division Bench went wrong in holding that the learned Single Judge ought to have decided the point whether the posting of the First Respondent as Defence Attaché/Military Attaché to USA should be treated as Extra Regimental Employment. As the said issue was not raised by the First Respondent in his Statutory Complaint filed in February, 2005 and as the First Respondent did not even seek for a declaration in the Writ Petition, the learned Single Judge was right in not deciding the issue of the posting of the First Respondent as Defence Attaché/Military Attaché to USA being treated as Extra Regimental Employment.

Case Number : C.A. No. 7436 - 7437 of 2010 09-04-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : B. Krishna Prasad
Respondent's Advocate : Ejaz Maqbool
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao

22. Jvpd Scheme Welfare Trust Thr. Its Seretary Vijay Amrut Gone v. The Chief Officer, M. H. A. D. . Brd Grih Nirman Bhavan

Land Law - The Maharashtra Housing and Area Development (Disposal of Land) Regulations, 1982 - Regulation 16 - Allotment of Plot - the guidelines under which the powers were exercised under Regulation 16, at the time when the appellant applied and claimed the right of allotment is not in existence. A fresh directives and guidelines would govern the exercise of powers under Regulation 16, which came to be approved by the High Court, are to be applied.

Case Number : C.A. No. 4571 of 2009 09-04-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : C.K. Sucharita
Respondent's Advocate : Asha Gopalan Nair
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah

23. Jawed Urdu Primary School Through Its Secretary v. Collector of Mumbai

Land Law - The land in question be granted / allotted in favour of respondent No. 3 Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation after complying with other procedural requirements and on compliance of the other terms and conditions in accordance with law and the policy, so that respondent No 3 may establish and run the primary school on the land in question which will be in the larger public interest.

Case Number : C.A. No. 611 of 2008 09-04-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Balraj Dewan
Respondent's Advocate : Suchitra Atul Chitale
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah

24. Anurag Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 90, 375 and 376 - Rape - Consent - If it is established and proved that from the inception the accused who gave the promise to the prosecutrix to marry, did not have any intention to marry and the prosecutrix gave the consent for sexual intercourse on such an assurance by the accused that he would marry her, such a consent can be said to be a consent obtained on a misconception of fact as per Section 90 of the IPC and, in such a case, such a consent would not excuse the offender and such an offender can be said to have committed the rape as defined under Section 375 of the IPC and can be convicted for the offence under Section 376 of the IPC.

Case Number : Crl.A. No. 629 of 2019 09-04-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Prakash Ranjan Nayak
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah

25. Shailndra Kumar Jain v. Maya Prakash Jain

Succession - On the death of the father and mother, if they died intestate, then under the principles of the Hindu Succession Act, every Class I heir including the daughters, would be entitled to a share in the property left behind by their parents.

Case Number : C.A. No. 3587 of 2019 09-04-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Dhananjay Garg
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indu Malhotra
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit

26. Pradeepkumar Gordhandas Patel v. Chandrakant Jivanlal Patel

The Presidency Small Causes Act, 1882 - Section 41 - As much as no order is passed either under Section 41 or under Section 43 of the Act by the Small Causes Court, the High Court has committed error in issuing directions to the appellant to vacate the premises, which is subject matter of the petition.

Case Number : C.A. No. 3591 / 2019 09-04-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Gautam Talukdar
Bench : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Subhash Reddy
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi