FIRST LAW

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.

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.

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.

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’.

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.

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.

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.

1. B.K. Pavitra v. Union of India Constitution of India - Article 16 - Reservation - Constitutional Challenge - Constitutional Backdrop to Reservations in Karnataka - Assent to the Bill - Does the Reservation Act 2018 overrule or nullify B.K. Pavitra I - Is the basis of B.K. Pavitra I cured in enacting the Reservation Act 2018- Ratna Prabha Committee Report - Substantive versus formal equality - Constituent Assembly‘s understanding of Article 16 (4) - Constitution as a transformative instrument - Efficiency in administration - Issue of creamy layer - Retrospectivity - the challenge to the constitutional validity of the Reservation Act 2018 is lacking in substance. Following the decision in B.K. Pavitra I, the State government duly carried out the exercise of collating and analysing data on the compelling factors adverted to by the Constitution Bench in Nagaraj. The Reservation Act 2018 has cured the deficiency which was noticed by B.K. Pavitra I in respect of the Reservati...

1. Shio Shankar Dubey v. The State of Bihar The Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Murder - Witness - Close Relative - The mere fact that witness is related does not lead to inference that such witness is an interested witness.

1. State by the Superintendent of Police v. Shakul Hammed The Unlawful Activities(Prevention) Act, 1967 - Section 43D(2)(b) - Scope of - The necessary ingredients of the proviso to Section 43D(2)(b) of the UAP Act, 1967 has to be fulfilled for its proper application. These are as under:­ A. It has not been possible to complete the investigation within the period of 90 days. B. A report to be submitted by the Public Prosecutor. C. Said report indicating the progress of investigation and the specific reasons for detention of the accused beyond the period of 90 days. D. Satisfaction of the Court in respect of the report of the Public Prosecutor.