Skip to main content

4 Important Supreme Court Judgments April 29, 2019

1. Govind Singh v. The State of Chhattisgarh

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Murder - Quarrel between the appellant-father and his daughter-deceased - the appellant-accused threw chimney lamp on the deceased causing her burn injuries - She sustained injuries on her face, chest and stomach and parts below the legs. The deceased succumbed to injuries seven days after the occurrence. The entire occurrence was in a spur of moment. There was quarrel between the father and daughter as to where the bulb is to be put on. In the sudden quarrel and in spur of the moment, the appellant threw the chimney lamp on his daughter. The occurrence was sudden and there was no premeditation. The chimney lamp was burning there which the appellant had picked up and thrown on the deceased. Since the occurrence was in sudden quarrel and there was no premeditation, the act of the accused would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300. The conviction of the appellant-accused under Section 302 IPC is modified as the one under Section 304 Part-II IPC.

Citations : 2019 (7) SCALE 20
Case Number : Crl.A. No. 770 of 2019 29-04-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Anjani Aiyagari
Bench : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Subhash Reddy


2. Hindustan Sanitaryware and Industries Ltd. v. The State of Haryana

The Minimum Wages Act, 1948

(a) The prohibition of segregation of wages into components in the form of allowances in the Notification is impermissible; 

(b) The security inspector/ security officer/ security supervisor cannot be included in the Notification; 

(c) Trainees who are employed without payment of any reward cannot be covered by the Notification; 

(d) Categorization of unskilled employees as semiskilled and semi-skilled as skilled on the basis of their experience is ultra vires. 

(e) Fixing the training period for one year is beyond the jurisdiction of the Government.



Citations : 2019 (7) SCALE 39
Case Number : C.A. No. 2539 of 2010 29-04-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : V. D. Khanna
Respondent's Advocate : Kamal Mohan Gupta
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah

3. Rajbir Surajbhan Singh v. The Chairman, Institute of Banking Personnel Selection, Mumbai

Constitution of India - Article 32 or Article 226 - Institute of Banking Personnel Selection is not amenable to the Writ Jurisdiction.

As the activity of the Respondent of conducting the selection process for appointment to the banks is voluntary in nature, it cannot be said that there is any public function discharged by the Respondent. There is no positive obligation, either statutory or otherwise on the Respondent to conduct the recruitment tests. 



Citations : JT 2019 (5) SC 35 : 2019 (7) SCALE 23
Case Number : C.A. No. 4455 of 2019 29-04-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Gagan Gupta
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. R. Shah

4. Sameer Kapoor v. The State Through Sub Division Magistrate South

Succession Act, 1925 - Section 228 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 137.

Whether Article 137 of the Limitation Act shall be applicable for application for grant of probate or letters of administration ?



Whether the application under Section 228 of the Indian Succession Act shall be barred by the period of limitation prescribed under Article 137 of the Limitation Act ?

Whether the period of limitation for application under Section 228 of the Act would start to run from the date of grant of probate by a court of competent jurisdiction situated beyond the limits of the State, whether within or beyond the limits of India?

Citations : 2019 (7) SCALE 29
Case Number : C.A. No. 10482 of 2013 29-04-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Divyakant Lahoti
Respondent's Advocate : Balraj Dewan
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Presumptions are the Bats of the Law, Flitting in the Twilight, but Disappearing in the Sunshine of Actual Facts [ORDER]

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 -  Section 138 -  failure on the part of the complainant to produce his account statement and absence of entry in accounts maintained by him regarding loan advanced to the accused, does show that there was no material to support the basic facts on which the entire case of the complainant was based. Sufficient material was available on record    whereby the defence of the accused became probable. In such a situation, the presumption under the provisions of the Act ceased to operate and the burden fell upon the complainant to prove his case, which he failed to do by placing on record cogent evidence.

500+ Supreme Court of India Judgments on Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with Head Notes & Citations

1. Mallamma (dead) By Lrs. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [07-04-2014] 

Adverse Possession | Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur, C.A. No. 7764 of 2014 07-08-2019 SC

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |  Arun Mishra , S. Abdul Nazeer & M.R. Shah C.A. No.7764 of 2014 with S.L.P. (C) Nos. 8332 - ­8333 of 2014 Radhakrishna Reddy (d) Through Lrs. v. G. Ayyavoo & Ors. August 07, 2019 Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 65 - Adverse Possession - Plea of acquisition of title by adverse possession can be taken by plaintiff under Article 65 of the Limitation Act and there is no bar under the Limitation Act, 1963 to sue on aforesaid basis in case of infringement of any rights of a plaintiff. A person in possession cannot be ousted by another person except by due procedure of law and once 12 years' period of adverse possession is over, even owner's right to eject him is lost and the possessory owner acquires right, title and interest possessed by the outgoing person/owner as the case may be against whom he has prescribed. In our opinion, consequence is that once the right, title or interest is acquired it can be used as a sword by the plaintiff as well...