7 Important Supreme Court Judgments July 9, 2019

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’.

Case Number : M.A. 883 - 884 of 2019 09-07-2019

Petitioner's Advocate : Jaikriti S. Jadeja

Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta

2. Nirmal Software Service (P) Ltd. v. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marthwada University

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 12 - On 08.07.2019, the parties jointly requested for the appointment of Mr. Justice Pratap Hardas (Retd.) Judge of the Bombay High Court, as the Sole Arbitrator. On the joint request of the parties, we appoint Mr. Justice Pratap Hardas (Retd.) as the Sole Arbitrator, subject to the declarations being made under Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with respect to independence and impartiality, and the ability to devote sufficient time to complete the arbitration within the period of 12 months. The parties have agreed to pay fees to the Arbitrator in accordance with the Fourth Schedule to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as amended. As per the MoU, the seat/place of arbitration shall be Aurangabad.

Case Number : SLP (C) No. 30863 of 2018 09-07-2019

Petitioner's Advocate : Anagha S. Desai

Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indu Malhotra

Judgment By : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indu Malhotra

3. Shiv Darshan Singh v. Rakesh Tiwari Director General

The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 - Sections 2 (a), 3 and 38 - The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules, 1959 - Rules 31, 32 and 33 - “ancient monument” - “prohibited area” - “regulated area” - “repair and renovation” - Power to make rules - Notice or intention to declare a prohibited or regulated area - Declaration of prohibited or regulated area - Effect of declaration of prohibited or regulated area - Declaration of prohibited area and carrying out public work or other works in prohibited area - Declaration of regulated area in respect of every protected monument.

Case Number : Conmt. Pet. (C) No. 697 of 2017 09-07-2019

Petitioner's Advocate : Abhijit Sengupta

Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indira Banerjee

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit

4. The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Lafarge Dealers Association

The Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000 - Sections 2(e), (f), (j) and (k), Sections 3, 4 and 5 and Sections 78, 79, 80, 85 and 86(1)

Case Number : C.A. No. 5302 of 2019 09-07-2019

Petitioner's Advocate : C.D. Singh

Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjiv Khanna

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjiv Khanna

5. Bengal Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Ajit Nain

The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 - Sections 2 (e), 5 (1) and 7 (2) & (2A) -

Case Number : C.A. No. 5314 - 5315 of 2019 09-07-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Rashmi Singhania
Bench : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.S. Bopanna
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi

6. The Peerless Gen.fin and Investment Company Limited v. Commnr. of Income Tax

Income Tax Act, 1961 - Whether receipts of subscriptions in the hands of the assessee-Company for the previous years relevant to the assessment years 1985-86 and 1986- 97 should be treated as income and not capital receipts inasmuch as the assessee has in its books of accounts shown this sum as income - Held, The “theoretical” aspect of the present transaction is the fact that the assessee treated subscription receipts as income. The reality of the situation, however, is that the business aspect of the matter, when viewed as a whole, leads inevitably to the conclusion that the receipts in question were capital receipts and not income.

Case Number : C.A. No. 1265 of 2007 09-07-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : K. Rajeev
Respondent's Advocate : B.V. Balaram Das
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjiv Khanna
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman

7. Sita Ram v. State of Nct of Delhi

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 read with 34 - In order to attract Exception 4 to Section 300 I.P.C. the following ingredients have to be established : (i) The crime must be committed without premeditation; (ii) It must be committed in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel; (iii) The Offender should not have taken undue advantage; (iv) The Offender should not have acted in a cruel or unusual manner.

The occurrence was without premeditation and sudden fight between the parties started in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel. The occurrence happened when deceased-Mangal Singh as his way back home questioned Girdhari (A-1) as to his conduct of tapping electricity from the pole. The appellant-Sita Ram (A-2) was not pre-armed and other accused were also not pre-armed. Though, deceased-Mangal Singh has sustained as many as nine injuries, except injury no(s).1 to 3 which are the injuries caused on the head and all other injuries are on the hand, shoulder, arms etc. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained by deceased-Mangal Singh, it cannot be said that the appellantSita Ram (A-2) and other accused have taken undue advantage of deceased-Mangal Singh in attacking him. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view, the conviction of the appellant-Sita Ram (A-2) under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. deserves to be modified under Section 304 Part II I.P.C. In the result, the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. is modified under Section 304 Part II I.P.C. The appellant-Sita Ram is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of eight years. The appeal is partly allowed.

Case Number : Crl.A. No. 1014 of 2019 09-07-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Bharti Tyagi
Bench : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.S. Bopanna
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi