3 Important Supreme Court Judgments Pronounced Today [Friday, July 19, 2019]

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.

Case Number : C.A. No. 5699 of 2019 19-07-2019

Petitioner's Advocate : Abha R. Sharma

Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari

2. Rajesh S/o Shrirambapu Fate v. The State of Maharashtra

For the reasons given by us in our judgment of the date in Civil Appeal No.5444 of 2019, Vishal Ashok Thorat and ors. vs. Rajesh Shrirambapu Fate & Ors. this appeal is dismissed.

Case Number : C.A. No. 5687 of 2019 19-07-2019

Petitioner's Advocate : Sunil Kumar Verma

Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan

3. Vishal Ashok Thorat v. Rajesh Shrirambapu Fate

Assistant Inspector of Motor Vehicles, Group-C in Motor Vehicles Department (Recruitment) Rules 2016 - Rule 3(iii), Rule 3(iv) and Rule 4 - Validity of.

Service Law - PIL should not be entertained in service matter.

Case Number : C.A. No. 5444 of 2019 19-07-2019

Petitioner's Advocate : Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure

Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan

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.

FIRST LAW

Search This Blog