Legal Reference Library

In INSPECTOR (MAHILA) RAVINA vs Union of India, the promotion of a (Mahila) Inspector GD in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) was blocked since as per the Department she “had shown unwillingness to attend the promotional course‟. The Petitioner argued that she was in Stage III of her pregnancy and therefore could not attend the necessary courses. The main question which this court has to decide is whether the Petitioner’s pregnancy would amount to unwillingness or signify her inability to attend a required promotional course and if she is entitled to a relaxation of rules to claim seniority at par with her batchmates. The court allowed the petitioners plea by stating that ….to conclude that pregnancy amounts to mere unwillingness - as the respondents did in this case- was an indefensible. The choice to bear a child is not only a deeply personal one for a family but is also a physically taxing time for the mother. This right to reproduction and child rearing is an essential fa

Valuation of goods for Customs duty should be done only at the time and place of importation and it should not be based on the bill of lading but on goods arriving in India. The Supreme Court rejected the argument of the Commissioner of Customs that the quantity mentioned in the bill of lading should be the basis of payment of duty, not the quantity actually received in this country. The Customs appellate tribunal had upheld the view of the Customs authorities, but the Supreme Court said that the tribunal had "lost sight of the first principles". It stated in its judgment, in Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals vs Commissioner of Customs, that the tribunal was wrong in holding that a levy in the context of import duty can only be on imported goods, that is, on goods brought into India from a place outside of India. Till that is done, there is no charge to tax. Explaining the law further, the judgment stated that the taxable event in the case of imported goods is "impor

The government must pay for the negligence of its officers and it cannot claim "sovereign immunity" like in the old days, the Supreme Court has stated while imposing compensation on the authorities who failed to register three fishing vessels, causing loss to owners. The vessels were bought by Sancheta Food Products in an auction. They had to be registered under the Merchant Shipping Act for taking them to the high seas for fishing. However, the officers were taking contrary stands regarding the rules applicable to the vessels, causing heavy loss to the firm. It sued the government in the Calcutta high court. It imposed compensation on the government for its "contradictory and dilatory" stands. The government appealed to the Supreme Court, which upheld the high court judgment. It elaborated on the "vicarious liability" of the state for the actions of its officers and diluted the immunity of the government in negligence cases. Citing earlier decisions rejec

The Supreme Court last week stated that a government department must implement the industrial policy laid down by the government and should not devise its own policy, that too contrary to the Cabinet decision. The government must speak with one voice, the court stated in its judgment Llyod Electric & Engg Ltd vs State of Himachal Pradesh. "What is given by the right hand cannot be taken by the left hand," it remarked while allowing the appeal of the company holding that it was eligible for concessional rate in central sales tax. While the Cabinet had extended tax benefits up to 2013 for industrial units to attract investments, the department maintained that the company was not eligible for them as the notification was issued later and did not cover it. The high court upheld the interpretation of the department. Setting aside the judgment of the high court, the Supreme Court stated that the department cannot issue a notification contrary to the Cabinet decision on policy m

In a case of fraud against a bank, the accused person cannot get away by 'settling' the criminal complaint by repaying the amount involved, the Supreme Court stated in the judgment, Central Bureau of Investigation vs Maninder. The complaint was that the accused person opened a current account in the name of a firm with Punjab National Bank in Ludhiana and got an advance. Later, the vigilance officer of the bank found that the bill of lading produced by him was forged. Therefore, Maninder was arrested and criminal prosecution was launc-hed against him under the penal code provisions and the Prevention of Corruption Act. He moved the Delhi high court claiming that he had settled the affair with the bank after paying the amount and, therefore, the complaint should be quashed. The court did so. Therefore, the CBI filed an appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court stated the high court should not have exercised its discretion to quash the complaint without adequate reason. &quo

A two judge bench of the Supreme Court of India in Chief Controlling Revenue Authority v. Coastal Gujarat Power Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 6054 of 2015 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 32319 of 2013) has set aside an order passed by the High Court of Gujarat on 3 December 2012 in Stamp Reference No. 1/2011, holding that a mortgage deed with security trustee to secure loans of multiple banks would be treated as distinct transactions and would be liable for stamp duty as if separate mortgage deeds were recorded for each bank (Supreme Court Judgment). The High Court had observed that the stamp duty is payable on the instrument and not the transaction. As per the High Court the instrument was a mortgage deed between a borrower (mortgagor) and a security trustee (mortgagee). It was the security trustee alone who had the power to enforce the mortgage and not the banks. The High Court observed that Section 5 cannot be construed to empower the State to levy duty on the transaction as opposed to the

A full bench of the Hyderabad High Court has made it clear that the writ of habeas corpus is the only remedy available against illegal detention of a citizen. The writ’s object is to secure the release of a person who is illegally deprived of his liberty, it has noted. “Liberty of a citizen is a precious right, which cannot be transgressed by any one, including the detaining authorities. A writ of habeas corpus is an effective and prompt remedy. The detenu or any other person on his behalf can file habeas corpus writ petition to show a prima facie case of his unlawful detention and ,if he succeeds in establishing before the Court, he is entitled to the writ of habeas corpus as of right.” The bench headed by acting chief justice Dilip B Bhosale has made the above observations while dealing with a question referred to it: “Whether a petition for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus, under Article 226 of the Constitution, can be entertained against the order of preventive detention p

1.  [Gurpreet Singh Ahluwalia vs. District Magistrate Dehradun & Ors.] (Uttarakhand HC, 13.01.2015) Properties of the borrower were taken into possession by the Bank followed by auction notices for sale of the properties in question calling upon the bids from the interested purchasers. Pursuant to completion of bidding process, part deposit was made by the successful bidder out of total consideration amount with the Bank and bank was requested to get the properties auctioned demarcated so that sale deed may be executed in favour of the successful bidder after receiving balance consideration and physical possession thereof could also be handed over. Several requests were made to the concerned authority to demarcate the properties auctioned so that Bank may receive the balance of the consideration from the bidder and to also execute the sale deed in favour of the highest bidder. However still no demarcation was carried out and the Bank instead of pursuing the demarcation proceedin

Stock market regulator Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) does not have locus to intervene in a Scheme Petition under Sections (391 and 394) of Companies Act, the Bombay High Court has held in a recent judgment by Justice Kathawalla. Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act deal with issues relating to merger, amalgamation, restructuring of companies. SEBI had applied to the Bombay High Court to set aside the High Court’s earlier order sanctioning a scheme of arrangement and amalgamation in a matter relating to Ikisan Ltd and Kakinada Fertilizers . SEBI had contended in its application that a fraud had been perpetrated on the Court by suppression and/or misrepresentation of facts and documents relating to the court sanctioned composite scheme between Kakinada Fertilizers, erstwhile Nagarjuna Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd (NFCL), Ikisan Ltd and Nagarjuna Oil Refinery Ltd (NORL). Under this composite scheme, the oil business of the erstwhile NFCL was demerged into NORL an

Whether a defendant in a suit for partition can be permitted to withdraw an admission made in the written statement after a pretty long period, is the issue arising for consideration in these cases. Ram Niranjan Kajaria vs Sheo Prakash Kajaria & Ors on 18 September, 2015 Author: ..…….…..…………J. Bench: Anil R. Dave, Kurian Joseph, Amitava Roy                                     IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                        CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION                    CIVIL APPEAL NO.                OF 2015               (Arising from S.L.P. (C) Nos. 31423-31424 /2010) Ram Niranjan Kajaria                         … Appellant (s)                                    Versus Sheo Prakash Kajaria and others              … Respondent (s)                                     WITH                    CIVIL APPEAL NO.                OF 2015                   (Arising from S.L.P. (C) Nos. 33891/2010) Jugal Kishore Kajaria                              … Appellant

Sharadamma vs Mohammed Pyrejan(D) Tr.Lrs.& Anr on 23 September, 2015 Author: …………………………J. Bench: Kurian Joseph, Arun Mishra                                                                               Reportable                         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION                         CIVIL APPEAL NO.7889  OF 2015                 (Arising out of S.L.P. [C] No.36889 of 2013) Sharadamma                              … Appellant Vs. Mohammed Pyrejan (D) through LRs. & Anr.     … Respondents Is right to appeal lost if right transferred during pendency of appeal ? 3. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 24.9.2013 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Regular First Appeal No.1735 of 2011, dismissing the appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellant on the ground that she had released her interest in the suit property in favour of her daughter Smt. Padmavathi on 11.4.2011

State Of Punjab vs M/S. Bandeep Singh & Ors on 25 August, 2015 Author: …………………………………J. Bench: Vikramajit Sen, Shiva Kirti Singh                                                                               REPORTABLE                         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION                         CIVIL APPEAL No. 629 OF 2006 STATE OF PUNJAB                                               ...APPELLANT                                    VERSUS  M/S. BANDEEP SINGH & ORS.                                  …RESPONDENTS                                     WITH                             C.A. No. 630 of 2006 PUNJAB STATE LEATHER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION & ORS.                           ...APELLANTS                                    VERSUS BANDEEP SINGH & ORS.                         ...RESPONDENTS                            J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T 1 These Appeals assail the Judgment dated 2

Anil Kumar Srivastava vs State Of U.P. & Another on 20 August, 2004 Author: Kapadia Bench: Ashok Bhan, S.H. Kapadia            CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  5402 of 2004 PETITIONER: Anil Kumar Srivastava RESPONDENT: State of U.P. & Another DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20/08/2004 BENCH: ASHOK BHAN & S.H. KAPADIA JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T [Arising out of SLP (C) No.7790 OF 2004] WITH TRANSFERRED CASE No.54 OF 2004. On the above submissions, the central point which arises for determination is : whether the tender price of Rs.31,850/- per sq. mtr. is understated. In the present case, respondent no.2 invited offers for the plot admeasuring 54,320.18 sq. mtrs. for the shopping mall with 2800 ECS in order to decongest sector 18. Wide publicity was given. Several reputed developers bought tender documents. However, at the end of the day, there was only one bidder (respondent no.3) in the field. In the present case, malafides have been alleged, but not pressed. Therefore, the q

Vaish Aggarwal Panchayat vs Inder Kumar & Ors on 25 August, 2015 Author: D Misra Bench: Dipak Misra, Prafulla C. Pant                                                                               REPORTABLE                         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION                         CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2089 OF 2015                   [Arising out of SLP(C) NO. 6919 OF 2008] Vaish Aggarwal Panchayat                ... Appellant                                    Versus Inder Kumar and Others                  ... Respondents                                J U D G M E N T 10. We have referred to the decision of the High Court in extenso as it has used the words “admittedly” and scrutinized in detail the factual scenario. It is submitted by Mr. Mahabir Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant that the suit was filed seeking declaration of the judgment and decree dated 19.9.1998 in civil suit

Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6134-6135 of 2005] WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 951 OF 2006 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6252 of 2005] S.B. SINHA, J : Sabitha Ramamurthy & Anr vs R.B.S. Channabasavaradhya on 13 September, 2006 Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act provides that where a cheque drawn by a person is returned by the bank unpaid on the grounds specified therein, the person who had drawn the said cheque shall be deemed to have committed an offence thereunder. Section 139 provides for a presumption in favour of a holder of a negotiable instrument. Section 141 of the Act provides for offences by a company. Sub-section (1) of Section 141 reads as under: "141. Offences by companies.(1) If the person committing an offence under section 138 is a company, every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 838 OF 2008 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2094 of 2007] Aneeta Hada ...Appellant Versus M/s. Godfather Travels and Tours Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 842 OF 2008 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2117 of 2007] JUDGMENT S.B. SINHA, J : Aneeta Hada vs M/S Godfather Travels & Tours ... on 8 May, 2008 2. Appellant is said to be an authorised signatory of M/s. Intel Travels Ltd (Company). The said Company as also the respondent company had business transactions. Appellant on behalf of the company issued a cheque dated 17.1.2001 for a sum of Rs.5,10,000/- in favour of respondent which was dishonoured. Respondent filed a complaint petition against the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the Act' for short). The Company which is a juristic person was not arrayed as an accused. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence against her.