WEEKLY CASE LAW DIGEST - FEBRUARY 16 to 20 Feb – 2015

1.     Once an application in due compliance of Section 8 of the Arbitration Act is filed, the approach of the civil court should be not to see whether the court has jurisdiction. It should be to see whether its jurisdiction has been ousted". – Says Supreme Court

M/s. Sundaram Finance Limited & Anr. v. T. Thankam 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2079 OF 2015

Judgment Dated : 20/02/2015

CORAM : M.Y. EQBAL .J, KURIAN JOSEPH .J

ISSUE INVOLVED :
What should be the approach of the court once an application is filed in terms of Sec.8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the civil court?

2.     Once the High Court has already entertained the application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996. Then, the Award cannot be challenged before a Court subordinate to the High Court. – Says Supreme Court

REASON : Exercise of jurisdiction by such court shall be against the provision of Section 42 of the Act.

M/S. BHANDARI UDYOG LIMITED v. INDUSTRIAL FACILITATION COUNCIL AND ANOTHER
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2077 OF 2015

Judgment Dated : 20/02/2015

CORAM : M.Y. Eqbal .J , Kurian Joseph .J

Brief Facts of the Case :

The Appellant had filed petition under section 11 for the appointment of arbitration before the Karnataka High Court - Now, Once the Arbitral Award was passed - The respondent challenged the Award by filing an application under Section 34 of 1996 Act before the District Court. Hence, this substantial question of Law.

3.     Compassionate appointment can not be granted to a post for which the candidate is ineligible. - Says Supreme Court

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. v. Revat Singh 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2061 OF 2015

Judgment Dated : 20/02/2015

CORAM : Dipak Misra .J, Prafulla C. Pant .J

Brief Facts of the Case :

The Respondent's father( Driver) died in harness - He sought compassionate appointment on the post of driver - Qualification for the post of driver is marticulation but the respondent was only 8th Standard Pass .

CATCHPHRASE :

1.The courts and tribunals do not have the power to issue direction to make appointment by way of granting relaxation of eligibility or in
contravention thereof. (State of Gujarat v. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari,
(2012) 9 SCC 545)

2.Fixing eligibility for a particular post or even for admission to a course falls within the exclusive domain of the legislature/executive and cannot be
the subject-matter of judicial review, unless found to be arbitrary, unreasonable or has been fixed without keeping in mind the nature of service.

4.     If last day for filing charge sheet is holiday, the accused cannot be deprived of benefit of Section 167(2) of CrPC. – Says Supreme Court

REASON : Section 167(2) of CrPC shall be read with Sec. 10 of the General Clauses Act,1897 under such circumstances.

Ravi Prakash Singh @ Arvind Singh v. State of Bihar
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.325 OF 2015

Judgment Dated : 20/02/2015

CORAM : Dipak Misra .J, Prafulla C. Pant .J

5.     When the case is in toto based on circumstantial evidence, It is necessary for the prosecution to complete the chain of event of occurrence of an offence. - Says Supreme Court

Sanjeev v. State of Haryana
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1149 OF 2013

Judgment Dated : 19/02/2015

CORAM : T.S. Thakur .J,Rohinton Fali Nariman .J, Prafulla C. Pant .J

CATCHPHRASE :

1. When the deceased had suffered the injuries, there should have been some explanation on the record from the side of the defence as to
how he (accused) received the injury.

2. It is settled principle of law that, to establish commission of murder by an accused, motive is not required to be proved. ( Para 15)

3.Motive is something which prompts a man to form an intention. The intention can be formed even at the place of incident at the time of commission of crime.

6.      Suspension of Delhi High Court order on Prasar Bharti Case allows Doordarshan to display the sports events on the channet till the next order is passed. – Supreme Court

Prasar Bharati v. Board of Control for Cricket in India & Ors.
Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 4572-4573 of 2015

Order Dated : 20/02/2015

CORAM : RANJAN GOGOI .J, PRAFULLA C. PANT .J

7.     Whether Personal Liberty to choose the profession can be snatched away by the Government Policy. - Decided Madras High Court

Dr.M. Balasundaram and Ors. v. State of Tamilnadu & Anr.
W.A.No.1315 of 2014

Judgment Dated : 16/02/2015

CORAM : SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI .J, M.VENUGOPAL .J

The writ petitioners were not considered for promotion on the post of Associate Professor in General Surgery on the ground that they had obtained M.Ch in Pediatric Surgery (Super speciality).

It was stated by the Director of the Medical education that they have acquired super speciality degree M.Ch in Urology, Neurology and Paediatric Surgery respectively, as government candidate, for which the Government spends huge money to impart medical education and at the same time provides stipend to the private candidates and also valuable increments including the stipend equal to the salaries to the service candidates, therefore on completion of two years M.Ch degree along with two years teaching experience, the Government provided them the super speciality course expecting their services to be utilized in their concerned speciality branch only. Therefore, when the Government as an employer has got the right to expect the specialist Doctors to utilize their skills for the benefit of the poor and the needy peoplee, the non-consideration of the petitioners for the post of Associate Professor in General Surgery, cannot said to be at fault.

The Appellate Court held that unless there is any restriction, bond or undertaking given by the writ petitioner or put by the Government, at the time of undergoing super speciality course at the expense of the State Government. The Authority concerned cannot bar the promotion of the petitioners.

8.     The State Government cannot pass any order amending a procedural law regarding reservation in the matter of selection to posts, with retrospective effect, once the procedure of selection starts. - Says Supreme Court

M. SURENDER REDDY v. GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. 
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5099 OF 2006

Judgment Dated : 18/02/2015

CORAM : SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA .J, V. GOPALA GOWDA .J

CATCHPHRASE :

1.In absence of any express or necessarily implied provision in the statute, normally statute affects the rights prospectively.

2.A statutory provision is held to be retrospective either when it is so declared by express terms, or the intention to make retrospective clearly follows from the relevant words and the context in which they occur.

9.     In Absence of any other evidence, Mere illicit relationship is not sufficient to establish mental cruelty under Section 498-A and 306 of IPC : Says Supreme Court.

Ghusabhai Raisangbhai Chorasiya & Ors v. State of Gujarat 
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 262 OF 2009

Judgment Dated : 18/02/2015

CORAM : DIPAK MISRA .J, SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA .J

10.Articles 233 to 235 of the Constitution empower the High Court to maintain its independent functioning by allowing its recruitment process by prescribing its own limitations and not to be affected by even a statutory prescription relating to reservation. - Says Supreme Court

Nawal Kishore Mishra & Ors. v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1956-1957 OF 2015

Judgment Dated : 17/02/2015

CORAM : Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla .J, Abhay Manohar Sapre .J

11.A right to claim pension is governed by the statue. Hence, an employee has no right to claim any benefit in relation to pension dehores the statute.- Says Supreme Court

State of Madhya Pradesh & Others v. Hitkishore Swami 
CIVIL APPEAL No. 1892 OF 2015

Judgment Dated : 16/02/2015

CORAM : FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA .J, ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE .J

12.The Supreme Court today exercising its power under Art.142 of the Indian Constitution granted permission to the college to continue the 2014-15 session even though there was non- compliance of regulation 6 of AICTE Regulations,2012.

Mahatma Education Society’s Pillai’s Institute of Information Technology, Engineering, Media Studies & Research  v.  All India Council for Technical Education & Ors. 
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.1034 OF 2014

Judgment Dated : 16/02/2015

CORAM : ANIL R. DAVE .J, KURIAN JOSEPH .J

Brief Facts of the Case:

According to Regulation 6 of the Regulations, the petitioner was supposed to have certain land with lawful possession and clear title in the name
of the petitioner society but it was found that the petitioner was not having land as per the provisions of AICTE Regulations 2012.

The Supreme Court concerning the inconvenience and difficulties that could be faced by the already admitted student asked the college to comply with the regulation within a year.

13. The Supreme Court discussed the visitation rights of the Parent.

ROXANN SHARMA v.  ARUN SHARMA 

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1966    OF 2015

Judgment Dated : 17/02/2015

CORAM : VIKRAMAJIT SEN .J, C. NAGAPPAN .J

14. Serious allegation against the police officers compelled the Supreme Court to direct CBI to investigate the concern of rape victims.

Miss. X v.  State of Uttar Pradesh

WRIT PETITION (Crl.) No. – 218 of 2013

Judgment Dated : 17/02/2015

CORAM : M.Y Eqbal .J,  Shiva Kirti Singh .J

15. Collector, Panchayat Office, Railway Station , Bus Stand are conspicuous place. – says Supreme Court

STATE OF KARNATAKA TR.  SEC. HSG. & URB. & ANR.  V. VASAVADATTA CEMENT & ANOTHER

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1918 OF 2015

Judgment Dated : 16/02/2015

CORAM : SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA .J , VIKRAMAJIT SEN .J

Top of Form

Bottom of Form