15 Important Supreme Court Judgments April 30, 2019

1. 63 Moons Technologies Ltd. (formerly Known As Financial Technologies India Ltd. v. Union of India

The Companies Act, 1956 - Section 396 - Power of Central Government to provide for amalgamation of companies in public interest - Applicability and construction of.

Citations : 2019 (7) SCALE 50
Case Number : C.A. No. 4476 of 2019 30-04-2019

Petitioner's Advocate : E.C. Agrawala

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

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

2. Poonam Bai v. The State of Chhattisgarh

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Murder - Dying Declaration - There cannot be any dispute that a dying declaration can be the sole basis for convicting the accused. However, such a dying declaration should be trustworthy, voluntary, blemishless and reliable. In case the person recording the dying declaration is satisfied that the declarant is in a fit medical condition to make the statement and if there are no suspicious circumstances, the dying declaration may not be invalid solely on the ground that it was not certified by the doctor. Insistence for certification by the doctor is only a rule of prudence, to be applied based on the facts and circumstances of the case. The real test is as to whether the dying declaration is truthful and voluntary. It is often said that man will not meet his maker with a lie in his mouth. However, since the declarant who makes a dying declaration cannot be subjected to cross­examination, in order for the dying declaration to be the sole basis for conviction, it should be of such a nature that it inspires the full confidence of the court.

Citations : 2019 (7) SCALE 118
Case Number : Crl.A. No. 903 of 2018 30-04-2019

Petitioner's Advocate : Rupesh Kumar

Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar

3. S.K. Miglani v. State NCT of Delhi

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - The Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 201, 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B.

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 197 - Sanction - Whether a manager of nationalized bank can claim benefit of Section 197 Cr.P.C.

Even though a person working in a nationalized bank is a public servant still provisions of Section 197 are not attracted at all. Appellant being not a public servant removable from his office saved by or with the sanction of the Government, sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was not applicable. The appellant cannot claim protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C. We are of the view that examination of further question as to whether appellant was acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty was not required to be gone into, when he did not fulfill conditions for applicability of Section 197(1) Cr.P.C.

Citations : 2019 (7) SCALE 123
Case Number : Crl.A. No. 744 of 2019 30-04-2019

Petitioner's Advocate : Devendra Singh

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

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan

4. Kalabai v. The State of Madhya Pradesh

The Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Appellant threw the burning stove on the deceased due to which clothes of deceased caught fire and serious burn injuries were caused - When a person throws a burning stove on a person there is knowledge that the act is likely to cause death - the appellant can be said to have committed offence under Section 304 Part II IPC.

Citations : JT 2019 (5) SC 11 : 2019 (7) SCALE 132
Case Number : Crl.A. No. 763 of 2019 30-04-2019

Petitioner's Advocate : Anuradha Mutatkar

Respondent's Advocate : Mishra Saurabh

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

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan

5. Rashmi Chopra v. The State of Uttar Pradesh

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 498A - There is nothing in Section 498A, which may indicate that when a woman is subjected to cruelty, a complaint has to be filed necessarily by the women so subjected. A perusal of Section 498A, indicates that the provision does not contemplate that complaint for offence under Section 498A should be filed only by women, who is subjected to cruelty by husband or his relative. Complaint filed by the father cannot be said to be not maintainable on this ground.

Citations : 2019 (7) SCALE 152
Case Number : Crl.A. No. 594 of 2019 30-04-2019

Petitioner's Advocate : Shiv Kumar Suri

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

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan

6. The State of Rajasthan v. Nemi Chand Mahela

Doctrine of Res Judicata and Law of Precedent - Difference between - Res judicata operates in personam i.e. the matter in issue between the same parties in the former litigation, while law of precedent operates in rem i.e. the law once settled is binding on all under the jurisdiction of the High Court and the Supreme Court. Res judicata binds the parties to the proceedings for the reason that there should be an end to the litigation and therefore, subsequent proceeding inter-se parties to the litigation is barred. Therefore, law of res judicata concerns the same matter, while law of precedent concerns application of law in a similar issue. In res judicata, the correctness of the decision is normally immaterial and it does not matter whether the previous decision was right or wrong, unless the erroneous determination relates to the jurisdictional matter of that body.

Citations : 2019 (7) SCALE 143
Case Number : C.A. No. 3873 of 2010 30-04-2019

Petitioner's Advocate : Ruchi Kohli

Respondent's Advocate : Prashant Chaudhary

Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjiv Khanna

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjiv Khanna

7. JK Jute Mill Mazdoor Morcha v. Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills Company Ltd. Thr. Its Director

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - The Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 - Rule 6 - Whether a trade union could be said to be an operational creditor ?

The NCLAT, by the impugned judgment, is not correct in refusing to go into whether the trade union would come within the definition of “person” under Section 3(23) of the Code. Equally, the NCLAT is not correct in stating that a trade union would not be an operational creditor as no services are rendered by the trade union to the corporate debtor. What is clear is that the trade union represents its members who are workers, to whom dues may be owed by the employer, which are certainly debts owed for services rendered by each individual workman, who are collectively represented by the trade union. Equally, to state that for each workman there will be a separate cause of action, a separate claim, and a separate date of default would ignore the fact that a joint petition could be filed under Rule 6 read with Form 5 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016, with authority from several workmen to one of them to file such petition on behalf of all. For all these reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the NCLAT. The matter is now remanded to the NCLAT who will decide the appeal on merits expeditiously as this matter has been pending for quite some time. The appeal is allowed accordingly.

Citations : JT 2019 (5) SC 1 : 2019 (7) SCALE 136
Case Number : C.A. No. 20978 of 2017 30-04-2019

Petitioner's Advocate : Bijoy Kumar Jain

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

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

8. Visakhapatnam Metropolitan Region Development Authority v. Chavva Sheela Reddy

Public Authority - A public authority is accountable in respect of the demands which it raises and is duty bound to act fairly and reasonably.

Case Number : C.A. No. 4493 of 2019 30-04-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Kunal Cheema
Bench : Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta
Judgment By : Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud
For Petitioner(s) Mr. P.N. Misra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kunal Cheema, AOR Ms. Aditi Deshpande Parkhi, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. D. Ramakrishna Reddy, Adv. Theerthe Gowda N.M., Adv. Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, AOR

9. Narendra Kumar v. Chairman and Managing Director Syndicate Bank

The Syndicate Bank Employees’ Pension Regulations, 1995 - Clause 22 (2) - Non-compliance of - Forfeiture of Service.


Citations : 2019 (7) SCALE 264
Case Number : C.A. No. 4489 of 2019 30-04-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Puja Sharma
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.A. Bobde, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indira Banerjee
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul

10. Satyan v. Deputy Commissioner

The Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 - Section 197 - The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 - Section 4 - The Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 - Rule 9 (i) - Prohibition of transfer of granted lands - Conditions of Grant.

Citations : 2019 (7) SCALE 270
Case Number : C.A. No. 2976 - 2983 of 2019 30-04-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Lawyer S Knit & Co
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indira Banerjee
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul

11. Thongam Tarun Singh v. The State of Manipur

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 376 (2) (g) - Gang Rape - Sentence - Reduction of - Whether there are adequate and special reasons warranting exercise of discretion to reduce the sentence of imprisonment. What is ‘adequate and special reasons’ would depend upon several factors and no strait-jacket formula can be imposed. No catalogue can be prescribed for adequacy of reasons nor instances can be cited regarding special reasons. They differ from case to case.


Case Number : Crl.A. No. 805 of 2019 30-04-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Akshay Girish Ringe
Respondent's Advocate : Leishangthem Roshmani Kh
Bench : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi

12. Nazir Malita v. The State of West Bengal

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 341, 323, 304 r/w 34 - there was no premeditation - Conviction under Section 304 read with Section 34 IPC is modified to Section 304 Part II IPC and the sentence of imprisonment of fourteen years imposed upon the appellants is reduced to ten years.

Case Number : Crl.A. No. 807 of 2019 30-04-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Subhasish Bhowmick
Bench : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi

13. Piara Singh (Since Deceased) Through His Lrs Gurmeet Singh v. Kundan Singh (d) Thro. His Legal Heirs Jagjit Singh

Settlement Deeds - The appeal is disposed of in terms of the Settlement Deeds which shall form part of this order.

Case Number : C.A. No. 4511 of 2019 30-04-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Yadav Narender Singh
Bench : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi

14. Y. Savarimuthu v. The State of Tamil Nadu

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 80 - Notice - Substantial compliance of.


Case Number : C.A. No. 4495 - 4496 of 2019 30-04-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : M.A. Chinnasamy
Respondent's Advocate : B. Balaji
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman

15. M/s Snowtex Investment Limited v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central -2, Kolkata

The Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 73 - the amendment which was brought by Parliament to the Explanation to Section 73 by the Finance (No 2) Act 2014 was with effect from 1 April 2015. In its legislative wisdom, the Parliament amended Section 43(5) with effect from 1 April 2006 in relation to the business of trading in derivatives, Parliament brought about a specific amendment in the Explanation to Section 73, insofar as trading in shares is concerned, with effect from 1 April 2015. The latter amendment was intended to take effect from the date stipulated by Parliament and we see no reason to hold either that it was clarificatory or that the intent of Parliament was to give it retrospective effect. The consequence is that in A.Y. 2008-2009, the loss which occurred to the assessee as a result of its activity of trading in shares (a loss arising from the business of speculation) was not capable of being set off against the profits which 15 it had earned against the business of futures and options since the latter did not constitute profits and gains of a speculative business.

Case Number : C.A. No. 4483 of 2019 30-04-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Naveen R. Nath
Bench : Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta
Judgment By : Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud
For Appellant(s) Mr. R.V. Easwar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Naveen R. Nath, AOR Ms. Lalit Mohini Bhat, Adv. Mr. Rahul Jain, Adv. Ms. Rubal Bansal, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Arijit Prasad, Sr. Adv. Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR