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” - 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. U.U. Lalit & Indira Banerjee, JJ. Shiv Darshan Singh v. Rakesh Tiwari, Director General, Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) [Supreme Court of India, Cont.P. (C) No. 697 of 2017 09-07-2019]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 12 - Appointment of Sole Arbitrator - Seat / Place of Arbitration - Declarations with respect to independence and impartiality and the ability to devote sufficient time to complete the arbitration - Pay fees to the Arbitrator in accordance with the Fourth Schedule as amended. Abhay Manohar Sapre & Indu Malhotra, JJ. Nirmal Software Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University [Supreme Court of India, S.L.P. (C) No. 30863 of 2018 09-07-2019]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 18 - Equal treatment of Parties - Government - The Arbitration Act is a special Act which provides for quick resolution of disputes between the parties and Section 18 of the Act makes it clear that the parties shall be treated with equality. Once the Act mandates so, there cannot be any special treatment given to the Government as a party. R.F. Nariman & Vineet Saran, JJ. Pam Developments Private Ltd. v. State of West Bengal [Supreme Court of India, C.A. No. 5432 of 2019 12-07-2019]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 18, 34 and 36 - Equal treatment of Parties - Application for setting aside arbitral award - Enforcement - Arbitration Act does not provide for any special treatment to the Government while dealing with grant of stay in an application under proceedings of Section 34 of the Arbitration Act - there is no exceptional treatment to be given to the Government while considering the application for stay under Section 36 filed by the Government in proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. R.F. Nariman & Vineet Saran, JJ. Pam Developments Private Ltd. v. State of West Bengal [Supreme Court of India, C.A. No. 5432 of 2019 12-07-2019]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 36 - Enforcement - Mere reference to CPC in Section 36 cannot be construed in such a manner that it takes away the power conferred in the main statute (i.e. Arbitration Act) itself. R.F. Nariman & Vineet Saran, JJ. Pam Developments Private Ltd. v. State of West Bengal [Supreme Court of India, C.A. No. 5432 of 2019 12-07-2019]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 36 - The amended Section 36 of the Arbitration Act provides for: (a) after expiry of making an application to set aside the arbitral award (i.e. 90 days from the award) the award shall be enforced as if it was a decree of the Court; (b) filing of an application under Section 34 shall not by itself render the award unenforceable; (c) upon an application for grant of stay of the award, the Court has the discretion to grant stay, which may be subject to such conditions as it may deem fit; (d) while passing any stay order the Court is to “have due regard” to the provisions of CPC for grant of stay of money decree. R.F. Nariman & Vineet Saran, JJ. Pam Developments Private Ltd. v. State of West Bengal [Supreme Court of India, C.A. No. 5432 of 2019 12-07-2019]
Binding Precedent - Brief Judgment would make no difference. A.M. Khanwilkar & Ajay Rastogi, JJ. S.E. Graphites Private Limited v. State of Telangana [Supreme Court of India, C.A. No. 7574 of 2014 10-07-2019]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXVII Rule 8A - No security to be required from Government or a public officer in certain cases - the provision which was incorporated in the year 1937 during the British Raj, giving certain safeguards to the Government (which was then the British Crown) would not be applicable in today’s time, when we have a democratic Government. R.F. Nariman & Vineet Saran, JJ. Pam Developments Private Ltd. v. State of West Bengal [Supreme Court of India, C.A. No. 5432 of 2019 12-07-2019]
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. Ashok Bhushan & Navin Sinha, JJ. Sheoli Hati v. Somnath Das [Supreme Court of India, C.A. No. 5388 of 2019 11-07-2019]
Inadvertent Mistake - 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’. U.U. Lalit & Hemant Gupta, JJ. Hammad Ahmed v. Abdul Majeed [Supreme Court of India, M.A. 883 of 2019 09-07-2019]
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. R.F. Nariman & Sanjiv Khanna, JJ. Peerless Gen.fin and Investment Company Limited v. Commnr. of Income Tax [Supreme Court of India, C.A. No. 1265 of 2007 09-07-2019]
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. R.F. Nariman & Sanjiv Khanna, JJ. Peerless Gen.fin and Investment Company Limited v. Commnr. of Income Tax [Supreme Court of India, C.A. No. 1265 of 2007 09-07-2019]
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 - Section 2 (k) - 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. A.M. Khanwilkar & Ajay Rastogi, JJ. Pratap Singh @ Pikki v. State of Uttarakhand [Supreme Court of India, Crl.A. No. 1890 of 2011 12-07-2019]
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. R. Banumathi & A.S. Bopanna, JJ. Sita Ram v. State of Nct of Delhi [Supreme Court of India, Crl.A. No. 1014 of 2019 09-07-2019]
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. R. Banumathi & A.S. Bopanna, JJ. Sita Ram v. State of Nct of Delhi [Supreme Court of India, Crl.A. No. 1014 of 2019 09-07-2019]
Penal Law - Question of Sentencing - Principles of Proportionality of Sentencing Policy. A.M. Khanwilkar & Ajay Rastogi, JJ. Pratap Singh @ Pikki v. State of Uttarakhand [Supreme Court of India, Crl.A. No. 1890 of 2011 12-07-2019]
Pension - The State cannot arbitrarily pick and choose from amongst similarly situated persons, a cutoff date for extension of benefits especially pensionary benefits. M.R. Shah & A.S. Bopanna, JJ. All Manipur Pensioners Association by its Secretary v. State of Manipur [Supreme Court of India, C.A. No. 10857 of 2016 11-07-2019]
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 - Sections 2 (e), 5 (1) and 7 (2) & (2A). R. Banumathi & A.S. Bopanna, JJ. Bengal Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Ajit Nain [Supreme Court of India, C.A. No. 5314 of 2019 09-07-2019
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 - Sections 2 (e), 5 (1) and 7 (2) & (2A). R. Banumathi & A.S. Bopanna, JJ. Bengal Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Ajit Nain [Supreme Court of India, C.A. No. 5314 of 2019 09-07-2019
Reorganisation Act, 2000 (Madhya Pradesh) - Sections 2(e), (f), (j) & (k), 3, 4 & 5 & 78, 79, 80, 85 and 86(1). Ranjan Gogoi (CJI), S. Abdul Nazeer & Sanjiv Khanna, JJ. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Lafarge Dealers Association [Supreme Court of India, C.A. No. 5302 of 2019 09-07-2019]
Service Law - Nobody could be directed to claim wages for the period that he remained absent without leave or without justification. Ashok Bhushan & Navin Sinha, JJ. Chief Regional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited v. Siraj Uddin Khan [Supreme Court of India, C.A. No. 5390 of 2019 11-07-2019]
Comments
Post a Comment