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

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] 

Whether Plaint can be Rejected only against one of the Defendant(s) [SC JUDGMENT]

The Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 7 Rule 11 (d) – Rejection of Plaint - Relief of reject the plaint only against one of the defendant(s) – Held, Such a relief “cannot be entertained” in exercise of power under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC - the relief of rejection of plaint in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC cannot be pursued only in respect of one of the defendant(s) - the plaint has to be rejected as a whole or not at all, in exercise of power Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC - the plaint as presented must proceed as a whole or can be rejected as a whole but not in part.

When Magistrate may Dispense with Personal Attendance of Accused [SC Judgment] | First Law

Criminal Procedure Code, 1972 - Ss. 205 & 317 - Magistrate may dispense with personal attendance of accused - Provision for inquiries and trial being held in the absence of accused in certain cases - Discussed.