FIRST LAW

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA | R. Banumathi & A.S. Bopanna , JJ. Crl.A. No. 1167 of 2019 31-07-2019

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA | N.V. Ramana & S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ. Narendra Kumar Mittal v. M/s Nuper Housing Development Pvt. Ltd. C.A. No. 5979 of 2019 31-07-2019

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA | Bench :  Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi , Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.S. Bopanna, Case Number : C.A. No. 5850 of 2019 25-07-2019

1. Brahmani River Pellets Ltd. v. Kamachi Industries Ltd. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 11 (6) - Where the contract specifies the jurisdiction of the court at a particular place, only such court will have the jurisdiction to deal with the matter and parties intended to exclude all other courts.

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT |  Sanjay Kumar Singh, J .   Appl. U/s. 482 No. 16228 of 2019 25-07-2019 Naval Dey Bharti v. State of U.P. Cognizance of an Offence  – Before a Magistrate can be said to have taken cognizance of an offence, it is imperative that he must have taken notice of the accusations and applied his mind to the allegations made in the police report. Judicial Mind  – Without applying judicial mind and without even looking at the facts of the case mechanically issuing process only on the basis of operative portion of the charge sheet, does not amount to application of mind by the Magistrate. Judicial Order  – The judicial order cannot be allowed to be passed in a mechanical manner. Such tendency must be deprecated and cannot be allowed to perpetuate. Frivolous Prosecution  – Charge-sheet under Section 3/10 Examination Act, 1982 – In this case the magistrate concerned also did not take pain even to examine whether the Exam...

1. The Officer In Charge, Sub Regional Provident Fund Office v. M/s Godavari Garments Limited The Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - Section 2 (f) - The definition of “employee” under Section 2(f) of the EPF Act is an inclusive definition, and is widely worded to include any person engaged either directly or indirectly in connection with the work of an establishment.

1. Shiv Prakash Mishra v. The State of Uttar Pradesh The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 319 - Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence - The power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the trial court at any stage during trial to summon any person as an accused to face the trial if it appears from the evidence that such person has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused.

1. Sanjay Rajak v. The State of Bihar Evidence Law - Calls on Mobile demanding Ransom - Voice Recognition - Every individual has a distinctive style of speaking which makes identification by those acquainted possible - Even if a person tries to camouflage his voice in one call, given the limitations of human nature there will be a tendency to state certain words or sentences in an inimitable style exposing the identity.

1. M/s. Treaty Construction v. M/s Ruby Tower Co Op Hsg. Society Ltd. Consumer Law - Pecuniary Jurisdiction - The National Commission has observed, and rightly so, that such a plea was not specifically raised before the State Commission at the earliest opportunity; and the State Commission having already decided the matter on merits, such a technical objection as regards pecuniary jurisdiction could not have been countenanced before the National Commission.

1. Union of India v. Dimple Happy Dhakad The Customs Act, 1962 - Section 135 - The Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) - Section 3 - Detaining Authority - Power to make orders detaining certain persons - Validity of subjective satisfaction can be tested - The court must be conscious that the satisfaction of the detaining authority is “subjective” in nature and the court cannot substitute its opinion for the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and interfere with the order of detention. It does not mean that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is immune from judicial reviewability.

1. Badru (Since Deceased) Through Lrs. Hari Ram v. NTPC Limited (formerly National Thermal Power Corporation Limited) The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 41 Rule 22 - Rejection of cross objection without any discussion and reason cannot be countenanced. Case Number : C.A. No. 5557 - 5559 of 2019 16-07-2019 Petitioner's Advocate : Radhika Gautam Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indu Malhotra Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre 2. State of M.P. v. Dungaji (d) By Lrs. The Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 - As per Section 46 of the Act 1960 there shall be a complete bar against maintainability of the suit challenging the decision of the Competent Authority. Case Number : C.A. No. 11326 of 2011 16-07-2019 Petitioner's Advocate : Harsh Parashar Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra, Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, H...

1. Sudin Dilip Talaulikar v. Polycap Wires Pvt. Ltd. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXXVII Rule 3 - The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Procedure for Summary Suit - Procedure for the Appearance of Defendant - The ultimate object of a summary suit is expeditious disposal of a commercial dispute.

Adjudication / Litigation  - Ordinarily, a litigation is based on adjudication on the merits of the contentions of the parties. Litigation should not be terminated by default, either of the plaintiff or the defendant. The cause of justice does require that as far as possible, adjudication be done on merits. Ashok Bhushan & K.M. Joseph , JJ.  Robin Thapa v. Rohit Dora  [Supreme Court of India, C.A. No. 4507 of 2019 08-07-2019] Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 (Maharashtra)  - Section 52B. R. Banumathi & R. Subhash Reddy, JJ.  Hande Wavare & Co. v. Ramchandra Vitthal Dongre  [Supreme Court of India, C.A. No. 5350 of 2019 10-07-2019] Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 - Sections 2 (a), 3 and 38 - Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules, 1959 - Rules 31, 32 and 33 - “ancient monument” - “prohibited area” - “regulated area” - “repair and renovation” - P...

1. Pratap Singh @ Pikki v. The State of Uttarakhand The Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 302 / 149 and 323 / 149 - The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 - Section 2 (k) - The Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 - Rule 12 - Procedure to be followed in determination of age - the committee constituted has been entrusted to hold inquiry by seeking evidence in support of the respective claim has to first consider if there is a matriculation certificate available, in the first instance. In absence thereof, the date of birth certificate from the school (other than the play school) first attended; and in absence, the birth certificate given by the Corporation or a Municipal Corporation or a Panchayat in the descending form has to be considered as the basis for the purpose of determination of age of the juvenile.

When an accused is acquitted on the basis of a compromise, it cannot be said that the accused was honourably acquitted.

1. Sheoli Hati v. Somnath Das Custody of Child - What is in the interest of the child depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and has to be decided on its own merits without adhering to any fixed formula or rule.

1. M/s Hande Wavare and Co. v. Ramchandra Vitthal Dongre The Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 - Section 52B. Case Number : C.A. No. 5350 of 2019 10-07-2019 Petitioner's Advocate : Uday B. Dube Bench : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Subhash Reddy Judgment By : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi 2. M/s. S.E. Graphites Private Limited v. State of Telangana Binding Precedent - Brief Judgment would make no difference. Case Number : C.A. No. 7574 of 2014 10-07-2019 Petitioner's Advocate : Hitendra Nath Rath Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar

1. Hammad Ahmed v. Abdul Majeed There is an inadvertent mistake in the judgment dated April 3, 2019 when the Court said that the parties will additionally continue with the arrangements arrived at in respect of the management of the Hamdard in terms of resolution dated April 28, 2015. The resolution was in respect of two bank accounts of Hamdard in the Corporation Bank only. The resolution is in no way in respect of management of Hamdard and even remotely has no connection with the management of the Hamdard. Therefore, the word ‘management’ is inadvertent mistake of this Court which is required to be substituted by the word ‘banking operations’.

The Investigating Agency / Police is not authorized either to charge, or to try the accused and the same is a judicial function. Thus, the Investigating Agency / Police cannot amalgamate the separate offences investigated under separate FIRs, into one charge sheet.

Agreement - the clauses in the agreement ought to be given the plain, literal and grammatical meaning of the expression used in the same. No doubt, that the courts will also try to gather as to what intention the parties wanted to give them. Arun Mishra, B.R. Gavai & Surya Kant, JJJ. Adani Power (Mundra) Ltd. v. Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission , C.A. No. 11133 of 2011 02-07-2019 Air Force Act, 1950 - Ss. 13, 14 & 15 - Procedure before enrolling officer - Mode of Enrolment - Validity of Enrolment - appellant in breach of the provisions contained in AFO 14/2008 applied for the post of a Probationary Officer with the Bank of India, participated in the written test and appeared at the interview without intimation or approval. There was, therefore, a failure of the appellant to comply with his obligations both in terms of his engagement as an enrolled member of the force and in relation to the requirements which were to be fulfilled under the terms of AFO 14/2008....

Criminal Appeal - Accused did not appear in the criminal appeal before the High Court - When the accused has not entered appearance in the High Court, the High Court should have issued second notice to the accused or the High Court Legal Services Committee to appoint an advocate or the High Court could have taken the assistance of amicus curiae. When the accused was not represented, without appointing any counsel as amicus curiae to defend the accused, the High Court ought not to have decided the criminal appeal on merits; more so, when the accused had the benefit of the acquittal. The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - The High Court erred in reversing the acquittal without affording any opportunity to the appellant-accused or by appointing an amicus curiae to argue the matter on his behalf.

1. Christopher Raj v. K. Vijayakumar The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - The High Court erred in reversing the acquittal without affording any opportunity to the appellant-accused or by appointing an amicus curiae to argue the matter on his behalf.

1. Ramesh Dasu Chauhan v. The State of Maharashtra The Indian Penal Code, 1908 - Section 302, 392 / 34 -  Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections  25 , 26  and  27 - Recovery of Stolen Articles.

1. Sopanrao v. Syed Mehmood The Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 65 - Suit for Possession - Merely because one of the reliefs sought is of declaration that will not mean that the outer limitation of 12 years is lost.

The Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 - Section 11 (1) - W hether the High Court can issue a direction to a tenant, in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to vacate the premises occupied by him, inspite of the bar under Section 11(1) of the Act.

1. M/s Craft Interiors (P) Ltd. v. The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Intelligence), Bangalore The Karnataka Sales Tax Rules, 1957 - Rule 6(4)(m)(i) read with Explanation III to Rule 6(4) - Validity of - Whether the condition of ‘use in the same form in which such goods are purchased’ under Rule 6(4)(m)(i) of the KST Rules expands the scope of charging section i.e. Section 5B under KST Act, 1957.

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.

1. Doddamuniyappa (dead) Through Lrs. v. Muniswamy Joint Family Property - Property inherited from the father by his sons becomes joint family property in the hands of the sons.