Accused X vs The State Of Maharashtra

Topic : Post Conviction Mental Illness is A Mitigating Factor To Commute

Death Sentence

Overview : The Supreme Court held that post conviction mental illness will be a
mitigating factor while considering appeals of death convicts. The bench
comprising Justice NV Ramana, Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Justice
Indira Banerjee commuted death penalty of a person convicted of rape and
murder of two minor girls.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Aliyathammuda Beethathebiyyappura Pookoya vs. Pattakal Cheriyakoya

Topic : Compromise Decree In Representative Suit Void If Obtained Without

Leave Of Court And Notice To Interested Parties

Overview : The Supreme Court has observed that a compromise decree in a

representative suit obtained without the leave of the court and without issuing
notice to the parties interested would be void.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Amir Hamza Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra

Topic : Victim Has Right To Assist The Court In A Trial Before The Magistrate
Overview : The Supreme Court observed that, though the Magistrate is not
bound to grant permission to a victim to conduct prosecution at the mere asking
but the victim has a right to assist the Court in a trial before the Magistrate. The
bench comprising of Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Hemant Gupta
observed that if the magistrate is satisfied that the victim is in a position to assist
the Court and the trial does not involve such complexities which cannot be
handled by the victim, he/she would be within its jurisdiction to grant of
permission to the victim to take over the inquiry of the pendency before the
Magistrate.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Anokhilal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Topic : Only Lawyers With Minimum 10 Yrs Practice Shall Be Considered For
Representing Accused In Trial Of Offences Punishable With Death Or Life
Term

Overview : The Supreme Court issued guidelines in the matter of appointment

of amicus curiae to defend the accused in serious criminal cases. (i) In all cases
where there is a possibility of life sentence or death sentence, learned Advocates
who have put in minimum of 10 years practice at the Bar alone be considered to
be appointed as Amicus Curiae or through legal services to represent an
accused. (ii) In all matters dealt with by the High Court concerning
confirmation of death sentence, Senior Advocates of the Court must first be
considered to be appointed as Amicus Curiae. (iii) Whenever any learned
counsel is appointed as Amicus Curiae, some reasonable time may be provided
to enable the counsel to prepare the matter. There cannot be any hard and fast
rule in that behalf. However, a minimum of seven days' time may normally be
considered to be appropriate and adequate. (iv) Any learned counsel, who is
appointed as Amicus Curiae on behalf of the accused must normally be granted
to have meetings and discussion with the concerned accused.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Arshnoor Singh v Harpal Kaur and others

Topic : Mitakshara Law - Property Inherited By A Male Will Remain As

Coparcenary Property For Descendants Upto Three Degrees Below Him

Overview : The Supreme Court has held that the rule under Mitakshara law that
whenever a male ancestor inherits any property from any of his paternal
ancestors upto three degrees above him, then his male legal heirs upto three
degrees below him would get an equal right as coparceners in that property will
apply in cases of succession which opened before Hindu Succession Act 1956.
Applying this rule, the bench of Justices Justices U U Lalit and Indu Malhotra
allowed an appeal filed by one Arshnoor Singh, to set aside the sale deeds
executed by his father Dharam Singh in 1999. As per the impugned sale deeds,
Dharam Singh alienated joint family property to the respondent Harpal Kaur,
whom he subsequently married as second wife.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Asgar v Mohan Verma

Topic : Liberty Granted By Court To Pursue Appropriate Remedy Does Not Bar
Application Of Constructive Res Judicata

Overview : The Supreme Court has observed that liberty granted by court to
avail 'appropriate remedies' to a party does not bar application of principle of
constructive res judicata when he/she invokes such a remedy.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Ashok Kumar Kalra v Wing Cdr Surendra Agnihotri and others

Topic : Order VIII Rule 6A CPC - No Embargo On Filing Counter-Claim After

Filing Written Statement

Overview : The Supreme Court has held that a Court can exercise its discretion
and permit the filing of a counter-claim after the written statement, till the stage
of framing of the issues of the trial. The three judge bench headed by Justice
NV Ramana held that Order VIII Rule 6A of the CPC does not pose an embargo
on filing the counter-claim after filing the written statement.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

B K Pavitra and others v Union of India

Topic : Karnataka law on reservation of SC/STs in promotions upheld

Overview : The Supreme Court upheld the Constitutional validity of the

Karnataka Extension of Consequential Seniority to Government Servants
Promoted on the Basis of Reservation (to the Posts in the Civil Services of the
State) Act 2018. The said enactment provided for consequential seniority to
persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes promoted
under the reservation policy of the State of Karnataka. The bench comprising
Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud observed that
this law has cured the deficiency noted in the earlier BK Pavitra judgment in
respect of the 2002 law, and it does not amount to a usurpation of judicial power
by the state legislature. The Reservation Act 2018 is a valid exercise of the
enabling power conferred by Article 16 (4A) of the Constitution, the bench
added.
Link : Click here to read the judgement

Balkrishna Dattatraya Galande v Balkrishna Rambharose Gupta and another

Topic : Section 38 Specific Relief Act - Plaintiff Has To Prove His Actual
Possession On The Date Of Filing The Suit

Overview : The Supreme Court has observed that in a suit filed under Section
38 of the Specific Relief Act, permanent injunction can be granted only to a
person who is in actual possession of the property on the date of suit.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Bansidhar Sharma(Since Deceased) Vs The State Of Rajasthan

Topic : Section 144 CPC [Restitution] Not Attracted When There Is No

Variation Or Reversal Of A Decree Or Order

Overview : The Supreme Court has observed that the provisions of Section 144
of the Code of Civil Procedure will not be attracted when there is no variation
or reversal of a decree or order. "The principle of doctrine of restitution is that
on the reversal of a decree, the law imposes an obligation on the party to the suit
who received the benefit of the decree to make restitution to the other party for
what he has lost", observed the bench.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Bikram Chatterji and others v Union of India and others

Topic : Cancellation of Amrapali's RERA Registration

Overview : In a major relief to thousands of homebuyers, the Supreme Court

cancelled the registration of Amrapali group under Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act 2016, and directed the National Building Construction
Corporation take over its pending construction projects in Greater Noida and
Noida. The bench of Justices Arun Mishra and U U Lalit found that Amrapali
group had siphoned off homebuyers money with the connivance of Greater
Noida and Noida authorities. The Court has directed the Enforcement
Directorate to initiate action under Prevention of Money Laundering Act and
Foreign Exchange Management Act against Amrapali directors and authorities,
and update the Court with progress of probe with periodic reports.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Birla Institute of Technology v State of Jharkhand

Topic : Teachers entitled to gratuity; SC recalls initial order

Overview : Correcting its earlier erroneous judgment, the Supreme Court has
held that the teachers are entitled to invoke Payment of Gratuity Act for
claiming gratuity from his/her employer. On January 7, 2019 the Supreme Court
bench comprising of Justice AM Sapre and Justice Indu Malhotra held that, a
teacher, irrespective of the type of educational institute he/she is working, is not
an 'employee' under Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act and, therefore,
has no right to invoke the Act for claiming gratuity from his/her employer. On
January 8, Live Law published an article on why this judgment denying gratuity
to teachers is 'Per Incuriam'. It had quoted the 2009 amendment and 1997
notification and some high court judgments post 2009 amendment. On January
9, the bench headed by Justice Sapre suo motu listed the appeal and passed
order observing that it finds prima facie error in this judgment. It then stayed the
operation of the judgment and directed the registry to post the appeal for
rehearing.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

CBI vs Mohd. Parvez Abdul Kayyum

Topic : Restoration of convictions in Haren Pandya murder case

Overview : A bench of Justices Arun Mishra and Vineet Saran restored the
convictions in murder case of former Gujarat Home Minister Haren Pandya.
The Gujarat High Court had acquitted all the 12 convicts after observing that
CBI had "botched up" the investigation. The bench also dismissed with costs of
Rs 50,000 a PIL filed by NGO 'Centre for Public Interest Litigation' (CPIL)
which has sought court-monitored fresh investigation into the killing.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court v Subash Chandra Agarwal

Topic : RTI applicable to the office of CJI

Overview : In a historic judgment, the Supreme Court held that the office of
Chief Justice of India is a public authority under the Right to Information Act.
The Constitution Bench comprising the then CJI Ranjan Googi, Justices
Ramana, Chandrachud, Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna upheld the the 2010
judgment of Delhi HC which had held that RTI Act was applicable to CJI's
office. The Court has however underlined the importance of maintaining
confidentiality in some aspects of judicial administration, and has qualified the
right to information on the grounds of public interest. Penning his separate but
concurring opinion while dismissing the appeal against Delhi HC judgment that
held office of CJI is under purview of RTI Act, Justice DY Chandrachud
observed that the basis for the selection and appointment of judges to the higher
judiciary must be defined and placed in the public realm.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Colonel Shrawan Kumar Jaipuriyar @ Sarwan Kumar Jaipuriyar v Krishna

Nandan Singh and another

Topic : Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Plaint Can Be Rejected When It Does Not
Disclose Clear Right To Sue

Overview : The Supreme Court has observed that a plaint can be rejected Order
VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when it is manifestly vexatious,
meritless and groundless, in the sense that it does not disclose a clear right to
sue. The bench comprising of Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Justice
Sanjiv Khanna also observed that a mere contemplation or possibility that a
right may be infringed without any legitimate basis for that right, would not be
sufficient to hold that the plaint discloses a cause of action.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd V. Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors.

Topic : Essar Insolvency - SC Sets Aside NCLAT Order; Upholds Resolution

Plan Of Arcelor Mittal
Overview : In a landmark decision having wide impact on the IBC regime, the
Supreme Court allowed the appeal by Committee of Creditors in Essar Steel
insolvency to set aside the order of the National Company Law Appellate
Tribunal. The judgment pronounced by Justice R F Nariman held that there was
no equality between financial creditors and operational creditors. The
Adjudicating Authority cannot substitute the commercial wisdom of the CoC.
The Court has also held that the time limit of 330 days for resolution to be not
mandatory. It is open to the NCLT to extend the timeline if required.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

D.A.V. College Trust And Management Society vs. Director Of Public

Instructions

Topic : NGOs 'Substantially Financed' by Government amenable to RTI Act

Overview : In an important judgment delivered today, the Supreme Court has

held that non-governmental organisations [NGO] substantially financed,
whether directly or indirectly, by the appropriate government fall within the
ambit of 'public authority' under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act,
2005. The bench comprising Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Aniruddha Bose
held so, while considering appeals filed by colleges or associations running the
colleges and/or schools.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Dharam Singh v Prem Singh

Topic : Revenue Record Entries Can Be Challenged On The Ground That It
Was Made Fraudulently Or Surreptitiously

Overview : The Supreme Court has reiterated that the entries in the revenue
records can be challenged on the ground that it was made fraudulently or
surreptitiously.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Dodamuniyappa through LRs vs Muniswamy and others

Topic : Hindu Succession - Property Inherited From Father By Sons Becomes

Joint Family Property In The Hands Of Sons

Overview : The Supreme Court has ruled that property inherited from father by
sons becomes joint family property in the hands of sons. The bench of Justices
A M Khanwilkar and Ajay Rastogi rendered the decision.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Dr H K Sharma v Shri Ram Lal

Topic : Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not
Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

Overview : The Supreme Court observed that mere agreement to sell the
property of the landlord to the tenant would not result in termination of
landlord-tenant relationship between the parties unless there is a stipulation in
the agreement itself to that effect.
Link : Click here to read the judgement

Dr. Swapan Kumar Banerjee vs. State of WB

Topic : Wife Divorced By Husband On Ground Of Desertion Entitled To

Maintenance

Overview : The Supreme Court observed that a wife, who has been divorced by
the husband, on the ground that the wife has deserted him, is entitled to claim
maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The bench
comprising Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Aniruddha Bose, refusing the plea
to refer this issue to a larger bench, observed that this view has been
consistently taken by the Supreme Court and is in line with both the letter and
spirit of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Ebha Arjun Jadeja vs. State Of Gujarat

Topic : TADA Offences- FIR Cannot Be Registered Without Sanction Of

Competent Authority

Overview : The Supreme Court held that an FIR with respect to commission of
an offence under Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act cannot be
recorded by the police under Section 154 CrPC without sanction of the
competent authority. The bar under Section 20-A(1) of TADA Act applies to
information recorded under Section 154 of CrPC, the bench comprising Justice
Deepak Gupta and Justice Aniruddha Bose held while discharging an accused.
Link : Click here to read the judgement

Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecological Societies of India V. Union of India

Topic : SC Upholds Constitutionality Of Section 23 Of PCPNDT Act, Complete

Contents Of Form 'F' Mandatory

Overview : The Supreme Court upheld the Constitutional Validity of Sections

23(1) and 23(2) of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques
(Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 . Dismissing a writ petition filed by
Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecological Societies of India (FOGSI), the
bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Vineet Saran observed that
dilution of the provisions of the Act or the Rules would only defeat the purpose
of the Act to prevent female foeticide, and relegate the right to life of the girl
child under Article 21 of the Constitution, to a mere formality.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

G J Raja vs. Tejraj Surana

Topic : Section 143A NI Act On Interim Compensation Has No Retrospective

Application

Overview : Settling a confusion in prosecution of cheque bounce cases, the

Supreme Court held that Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act on
payment of interim compensation to the complainant during the pendency of the
case has no retrospective application.
Link : Click here to read the judgement

G.Ratna Raj by LRs vs Sri Muthukumaraswamy Permanent Fund Ltd

Topic : Decree Passed On Plaintiff's Evidence Without Defendant's Appearance

At Trial Is Ex-Parte Decree

Overview : The Supreme Court has held that a decree passed after taking
plaintiff's evidence, without the appearance of defendant at the trial stage, is an
ex-parte decree, which could be set aside under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of
Civil Procedure. The bench of Justice A M Sapre and Dinesh Maheshwari
passed the order in the case , which was an appeal against a High Court
judgment, which set aside a preliminary decree under Order IX Rule 13 CPC.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Gaurav Hargovindbhai Dave v Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd and

others

Topic : Article 137 Limitation Act applies to IBC

Overview : The Supreme Court has held that Article 62 of the Limitation Act
would only apply to suits and not to "an application" which is filed under
Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, which would fall only within
the residuary Article 137. The bench of Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, Justice
R. Subhash Reddy and Justice Surya Kant was considering an appeal against the
NCLT order [upheld by NCLAT] that admitted a Section 7 application on the
ground that, as per article 62, the limitation period was 12 years from the date
on which the money sued has become due.
Link : Click here to read the judgement

Govindbhai Chhotabhai Patel and ors v Patel Ramanbhai Mathurbhai

Topic : Father's Self Acquired Property Given To Son By Will/Gift Retains

Character Of Self Acquired Property Unless The Deed Intends Otherwise

Overview : The Supreme Court has held that as per Mitakshara Law of
Succession, father's self-acquired property given to son by way of Will/gift will
retain the character of self acquired property and will not become ancestral
property, unless a contrary intention is expressed in the testament. The bench
comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta was dealing with an
appeal from the High Court of Gujarat.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Gurmit Singh Bhatia v Kiran Kant Robinson and others

Topic : Plaintiff Cannot Be Forced To Add Parties Against Whom He Does Not
Want To Fight

Overview : The Supreme Court has reiterated that, in a suit, the plaintiff is the
dominus litis and cannot be forced to add parties against whom he does not
want to fight unless there is a compulsion of the rule of law.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Hardev Singh vs Harpreet Kaur

Topic : A Male Between The Age of 18 And 21 Yrs Cannot Be Punished For
Marrying A Female Adult

Overview : The Supreme Court held that a male aged between 18 and 21 years,
who contracts into a marriage with a female adult, cannot be punished under
Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Hindustan Construction Company Ltd v Union of India

Topic : SC Strikes Down Section 87 Of Arbitration & Conciliation Act Inserted

By 2019 Amendment

Overview : In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court struck down Section

87 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, which was inserted through the
2019 amendment Act passed by the Parliament last monsoon session. The
judgment was delivered in the case which was heard by a bench comprising
Justices R F Nariman, Surya Kant and V Ramasubramanian. The bench held the
provision, which brought back the automatic stay provision, to be "manifestly
arbitrary" and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Illoh Valappil Ambunhi (D) through LRs v Kunhambu Karnavan

Topic : Mere Error In Framing Substantial Question Of Law Would Not Render
A Judgment In Second Appeal To Be Set Aside

Overview : The Supreme Court has observed that mere error in framing a
question of law would not render a judgment in Second Appeal liable to be set
aside, if it is found that a substantial question of law existed and such question
has in fact been answered by the High Court.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

In re matter of great public importance touching upon the independence of

judiciary - mentioned by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, SMW(c)

Topic : CJI Sexual harassment conspiracy - Probe ordered

Overview : In an unusual suo moto proceeding, the Supreme Court bench of

Justices Arun Misra, R F Nariman and Deepak Gupta held that former SC judge
Justice A K Patnaik will hold enquiry regarding alleged conspiracy by fixers
and disgruntled employees against CJI Ranjan Gogoi. The allegations were
raised by Advocate Utsav Bains, after an ex-SC staff alleged in media that the
then CJI Ranjan Gogoi had sexually harassed her. A panel comprising three SC
judges constituted by the top court to probe the sexual harassment allegations
later gave a clean chit to the CJI. The complainant had stayed away from the
probe citing likelihood of bias. The report of the panel was not made public.The
enquiry proceedings were widely criticized by several lawyer bodies as opaque
and unfair.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Indian Hotel and Restaurant Association (AHAR) v State of Maharashtra,
WP(c)

Topic : Blanket ban on Maharashtra dance bars overturned

Overview : A two judges bench of Justices A K Sikri and Ashok Bhushan held
that there cannot be a total prohibition of dance bars in Maharashtra. The Bench
also relaxed the stringent conditions imposed by the Government for getting
license for dance bars. The Court however upheld several provisions of the
Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels, Restaurants and Bar
Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women (Working therein) Act, 2016. The
Court approved the definition of 'obscenity' in the Act as not vague, and also the
ban on throwing currency notes and money on the performers. The complete
prohibition on serving alcohol in the dance bars was quashed as
disproportionate.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Indibily Creative Pvt. Ltd. vs Govt. Of West Bengal

Topic : Free speech cannot be gagged by fear of mob violence - West Bengal
cinema ban overturned

Overview : The Supreme Court ordered Rs 20 lakhs compensation to the

makers of the Bengali film ""Bhobhishyoter Bhoot", which had suffered an
'unofficial' ban from the West Bengal government. The police authorities had
coerced the movie screens to withdraw the film citing law and order issues. The
makers of the film complained that the movie was targeted for being critical
against the government. A bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and Hemant
Gupta held that free speech cannot be gagged by fear of mob violence. "The
police are not in a free society the self-appointed guardians of public morality.
The uniformed authority of their force is subject to the rule of law. They cannot
arrogate to themselves the authority to be willing allies in the suppression of
dissent and obstruction of speech and expression", the Court added.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Indore Development Authority and others v Manohar Lal and others

Topic : Justice Arun Mishra's non-recusal from Indore Development Authority

case

Overview : In a controversial order, Justice Arun Mishra stated that he will not
recuse from heading the Constitution Bench which was formed to decide the
correctness of the interpretation give to Section 24(2) of the new Land
Acquisition Act by the 2018 Indore Development Authority case. The
petitioners in the case sought his recusal contending that there was apprehension
of bias as Justice Mishra had authored the 2018 judgment, which was under
reference. Justice Mishra said that it was for the judge to decide whether to
recuse or not and that it will not be in the interests of justice to recuse.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Jose Paulo Coutinho v Maria Luiza Valentai Pereira and another

Topic : Succession And Inheritance Of Goan Domicile Shall Be Governed By

Portuguese Civil Code

Overview : The Supreme Court has held that the rights of succession and
inheritance of a Goan domicile shall be governed by the Portuguese Civil Code,
1867 as applicable in the State of Goa. Rights of succession and inheritance
even in respect of properties of a Goan domicile situated outside Goa, anywhere
in India, will also be governed by the Code, the bench comprising Justice
Deepak Gupta and Justice Aniruddha Bose has held. "The Portuguese law
which may have had foreign origin became a part of the Indian laws, and, in
sum and substance, is an Indian law", observed the bench.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Kantaru Rajeevaru V. Indian Young Lawyers Association

Topic : SC Keeps Sabarimala Review Pending Till Larger Bench Decides

Issues Of Essential Religious Practices

Overview : The Supreme Court by 3 2 majority, decided to keep the review

petitions in Sabarimala matter pending until a larger bench determines questions
related to essential religious practices. The majority of CJI Ranjan Gogoi,
Justice Khanwilkar and Indu Malhotra expressed that the issue whether Court
can interfere in essential practises of religion needed examination by larger
bench. Justices Chandrachud and Nariman dissented. Let every person
remember that the "holy book" is the Constitution of India, remarked Justice
Rohinton Fali Nariman, also speaking for Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud,
in his dissent against the majority decision to refer the issues to larger bench.
The judges opined that most of the arguments raised in the review petitions
were already argued during the hearing of the writ petitions and were dealt with
in the judgment of 28th September 2018. The judge still dealt with the
arguments that was made by various parties during the hearing of review
petitions.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Karnataka State Pollution Control Board vs. B. Heera Naik

Topic : Body Corporates Like City Municipal Council/Corporation Can Be

Prosecuted U/s 47 Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act

Overview : The Supreme Court observed that Body Corporate like City
Municipal Council and Corporation can be prosecuted under Section 47 of the
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. In this case, the
Karnataka High Court had quashed the complaint filed by Karnataka State
Pollution Control Board on the ground that Commissioner of Municipal
Council, Chief Officer or Council cannot be termed as Head of the Department
and they cannot be prosecuted under Section 48 of the Act, 1974

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority vs State of Kerala and others

Topic : Maradu flats demolition order

Overview : The Supreme Court ordered the razing down of four high rise
apartments in Maradu, Kochi on finding that they were built in violation of CRZ
norms. A bench of Justices Arun Mishra and Navin Sinha noted that when the
construction has been raised by the builders , the area was within CRZ-III as per
the 1991 CRZ notification. The Court did not accept the builders' plea that the
area has been subsequently notified as CRZ-II (where such constructions are
arguably permissible), when the CZMP as per 2011 notification was finalized.
The bench later ordered the Government to pay an interim compensation of Rs
25 lakhs to the flat owners, and constituted a committee headed by former
Kerala HC judge Justice K Balakrishnan Nair to ascertain the liability of
builders.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

M Siddiq (d) through Lrs v Mahant Suresh Das and others

Topic : Ayodhya-Babri Masjid dispute

Overview : In an unanimous verdict, the Supreme Court held that the entire
disputed land of 2.77 acres in Ayodhya must be handed over for the
construction of Ram Mandir. At the same time, the Court held that an alternate
plot of 5 acres must be allotted to the Sunni Waqf Board for construction of
mosque. This direction was passed invoking powers under Article 142 of the
Constitution. The Court observed that the destruction of Babri mosque in 1992
was a violation of law. The act of placing idols beneath the central dome of the
mosque in 1949 was an act of "desecration", observed the Court. Later, the SC
dismissed a string of review petitions filed against the verdict.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

M. Revanna vs. Anjanamma

Topic : Is Amendment Of Pleadings Allowed After Commencement Of Trial?

SC Explains

Overview : The Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered on Thursday,

explained when and on what considerations an application for amendment of
pleadings filed after commencement of Trial, can be allowed. The bench
comprising Justice NV Ramana and Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
observed that, while dealing with such an application, the courts have to
consider whether it is bona fide or mala fide and whether it causes such
prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of
money.
Link : Click here to read the judgement

M/s Alkem Laboratories Ltd. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Topic : Right To Get Sample Tested Also Available To Vendor Of Misbranded

Food Article When Its Testing Is Integral To Prove The Offence.

Overview : The Supreme Court observed that, where examination of the

contents/ingredients of the food article is integral to proving the offence
'misbranding', the procedure prescribed under Sections 11-13 of the Prevention
of Food Adulteration Act has to be complied with, regardless of whether
'adulteration' is alleged or not.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

M/s Exel Careers and another vs Frankfinn Aviation Services

Topic : Should Proceedings In New Court Where 'Returned' Plaint Is Filed Be

Started De Novo? SC Refers To Larger Bench

Overview : Whether after a plaint is returned in terms of Order VII Rule 10 and
Rule 10A, Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), should the trial in the Court where
the plaint is now filed start de novo or from such stage at which the plaint was
ordered to be returned? The Supreme Court has referred this issue to larger
bench. In M/S EXL Careers vs. Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd, the bench
comprising Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Aniruddha Bose made this
reference after it noticed apparent conflict between the judgment in Oil and
Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.v. Modern Construction and Joginder Tuli vs. S. L.
Bhatia.
Link : Click here to read the judgement

Manoharan v State

Topic : Rape-death of minor girl. Death penalty upheld with 2 : 1 majority

Overview : The Supreme Court (21) upheld the death sentence awarded to a
man involved in gang rape of a ten year old girl and thereafter murdering her
and her brother.The appeal filed by Manoharan against the High Court
judgment was heard by a three judge bench comprising of Justice Rohinton Fali
Nariman, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Sanjeev Khanna. However, Justice
Sanjiv Khanna dissented with the confirmation of death sentence and opined
that the case does not fall under the category of 'rarest of rare' case, but would
fall within the special category of cases, where the appellant should be directed
to suffer sentence for life i.e. till his natural death, without
remission/commutation.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Mukesh Singh v State, SLP(Crl)

Topic : Will NDPS trial be vitiated if complainant and Investigating Officer are
the same? SC doubts earlier decision.

Overview : A two judge bench of Supreme Court expressed its disagreement

with the view taken by a three-judge bench in Mohan Lal vs. State of Punjab
where it held that that the accused is entitled to acquittal if informant and the
investigator in NDPS cases is the same person. The bench comprising Justice
UU Lalit and Justice MR Shah made this observation while hearing an SLP
(Mukesh Singh vs. State) filed against conviction in an NDPS matter. The
counsel for the accused placed reliance on MohanLal vs. State of Punjab to
contend that since the investigation in the present case was conducted by the
Police Officer who himself was the complainant, the trial was vitiated and as
such the petitioner-accused is entitled to acquittal. The matter was therefore
referred to larger Constitution Bench.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Murugan and others vs Kesava Gounder (D) through LRs

Topic : Sale Of Minor's Property By Guardian Can Be Avoided Only By Filing

Suit To Set Aside Deed Within Period Under Art.60 Limitation Act

Overview : The Supreme Court has held that a sale of minor's property by
guardian can be avoided only by filing a suit to set aside the deed within the
period of limitation prescribed under Article 60 of the Limitation Act, which is
three years from the date of attaining majority by the minor. In case the minor
has died before attaining majority, as it happened in the case before the SC, the
legal representatives of the minor should bring the suit within 3 years from the
date on which the minor would have attained majority. The bench of Justice
Ashok Bhushan and K M Joseph was dealing with an appeal by the plaintiffs in
a suit for declaration of title and possession of immovable property. Notably,
the plaintiffs omitted to seek the prayer for setting aside the sale deeds, which
turned fatal to the case.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

National Lawyers Campaign for Judicial Transparency and others vs Union of

India, WP(c)
Topic : When contempt is in the face of the court - Advocate Mathews
Nedumpara's case

Overview : A bench of Justices R F Nariman and Vineet Saran held Advocate

Mathews Nedumpara guilty of contempt of court and sentenced him to three
months imprisonment and barred him from practicing in SC for one year. It was
held that the sentence will remain suspended so long as he abides by his
undertaking that he will not attempt to browbeat any judge of High Court or
Supreme Court. The Court's action was triggered by Nedumpara's reference to
Senior Advocate Fali S Nariman while alleging that only relatives of judges
were being designated as senior advocates. Despite the cautioning by the court,
he repeated the reference. When questioned about it, he denied having done so.
When the others present in the Court confirmed his action, he attempted to
justify his references. The Court's finding was not based on his solitary action of
taking the name of Senior Advocate Fali S Nariman. Rather, the Court took into
account several past orders passed by the Supreme Court and the Bombay High
Court deprecating the rough conduct of Nedumpara in Court. The Supreme
Court followed the dictum that when contempt is in the face of court, summary
procedure can be followed to inflict punishment "then and there".

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Nevada Properties Private Limited V. State Of Maharashtra And Anr

Topic : Police Cannot Attach Immovable Property Under Sec.102 CrPC During
Investigation

Overview : The Supreme Court held that police does not have the power to
attach immovable property during investigation under Section 102 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure. The judgment was delivered by the bench comprising
CJI Ranjan Gogoi, Justices Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna. However, police
does have authority to freeze moveable properties of the accused, clarified the
bench. The Supreme Court held that the expression 'any property' appearing in
Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would not include 'immovable
property'. The bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Deepak
Gupta and Justice Sanjiv Khanna observed thus while holding that a power of a
police officer under Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code to seize any
property, which may be found under circumstances that create suspicion of the
commission of any offence, would not include the power to attach, seize and
seal an immovable property.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Krishna Kumar Pandey

Topic : Section 362 CrPC Does Not Bar Inherent Power Of High Court To
Recall An Order

Overview : The Supreme Court has observed that the High Court has inherent
power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to recall an order
and the provisions of Section 362 Cr.P.C. would not bar it from exercise of such
powers.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Nivedita Jha v State of Bihar and others, SLP(c)

Topic : CBI Addl.Director Nageswara Rao held guilty of Contempt of Court

Overview : The Supreme Court bench headed by CJI Ranjan Gogoi held CBI
Additional Director M Nageswara Rao guilty of contempt of court for
transferring the investigating officer heading the probe in Muzaffarpur shelter
home case in violation of the orders of the Court. The Court sentenced him till
the rising of the Court and imposed a fine of Rs. one lakh, after noting that the
transfer orders were passed by him despite knowing that the SC had ordered
that the investigation team should not be changed.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Nusli Neville Wadia vs Ivory Properties and others

Topic : Section 9A CPC (Maharashtra)- Question Of Limitation Cannot Be

Decided As A Preliminary Issue

Overview : The Supreme Court has observed that, under Section 9A of the Code
of Civil Procedure applicable in the state of Maharashtra, question of limitation
cannot be decided as a preliminary issue. The bench comprising Justice Arun
Mishra, Justice MR Shah and Justice BR Gavai observed that under the
provisions of Section 9A and Order XIV Rule 2, it is open to decide preliminary
issues if it is purely a question of law and not a mixed question of law and fact
by recording evidence.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

P Chidambaram v CBI

Topic : Bail granted to P Chidambaram in CBI case in INX Media scam

Overview : On October 22, the Supreme Court granted bail to Senior Advocate,
Rajya Sabha MP and former Union Minister P Chidambaram in the case
registered by CBI in connection with INX media case. The bench of Justices R
Banumathi and A S Bopanna allowed the appeal against Delhi High Court
judgment holding that he was not a "flight risk" and that there was no
possibilities of tampering of evidence or intimidation of witnesses by him, as
the investigation had progressed. The Court had earlier denied him bail.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

P Chidambaram v Directorate of Enforcement

Topic : Denial of bail on findings based on sealed cover documents presented

by prosecution is against fair trial - Chidambaram Bail In INX Media case

Overview : In the judgment granting bail to P Chidambaram in the INX Media

case after 105 days of custody, the Supreme Court made certain pertinent
observations regarding the practice of courts relying on sealed cover documents
produced by prosecution during bail hearings. The SC observed that recording
of findings based on the sealed cover documents submitted by the prosecution
as if the offence has been committed, and using of such findings to deny bail
would be against the concept of fair trial. "It would be against the concept of
fair trial if in every case the prosecution presents documents in sealed cover and
the findings on the same are recorded as if the offence is committed and the
same is treated as having a bearing for denial or grant of bail", said a bench
comprising Justices R Banumathi, A S Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

P. Gopalkrishnan @ Dileep vs. State of Kerala.

Topic : Contents Of Memory Card Will Be 'Document' And Not 'Material

Object'
Overview : The Supreme Court observed that a Magistrate cannot withhold any
"document" submitted by the investigating officer along with the police report
except when it is voluminous. Further, in case of voluminous documents, the
accused can be permitted to take inspection of the concerned document either
personally or through his pleader in Court, the bench of Justice AM Khanwilkar
and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari. The contents of a memory card in relation to a
crime amount to a 'document' and not a 'material object', held the Supreme
Court while deciding Kerala actor Dileep's plea for handing over copy of the
visuals of the alleged sexual crime committed on a Kerala actress in February
2017. The SC bench comprising Justices A M Khanwilkar and Dinesh
Maheswari overturned the view taken by the High Court of Kerala that the
memory card was a material object, and hence it will not come under the ambit
of Section 207 CrPC. In cases involving issues of privacy and identity of the
complainant or witnesses, such as sexual offences, the Court said that a
balanced approach needs to be taken. The right to fair trial of the accused and
the right to privacy of the victim should be balanced.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Pattu Rajan and others v State of Tamil Nadu

Topic : Saravana Bhavan's founder held guilty in murder case

Overview : The Supreme Court upheld the life sentence awarded to P Rajagopal
- the founder of famous South Indian restaurant chain Saravana Bhavan - and
five of his aides for murder of Santhakumar in 2001. The bench of Justices N V
Ramana, Mohan M Shantanagoudar and Indira Banerjee dismissed the batch of
appeals filed by accused against the 2009 judgment of Madras High Court. The
crime was committed with the motive of Rajagopal to take Jeevajothi, the wife
of deceased Santhakumar, as his third wife. Rajagopal had got an advise from
his astrologer that his business will flourish if he married Jeevajothi. Rajagopal
was given time till July to surrender to serve the sentence. Before that, the 72
year old died due to cardiac arrest on July 18.
Link : Click here to read the judgement

Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd and another v Union of India

Topic : Treating homebuyers as financial creditors under IBC not

unconstitutional

Overview : Dismissing a bunch of petitions filed by nearly 200 realtors, the

Supreme Court upheld the amendments made to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy
Code in 2018 to treat homebuyers as financial creditors. A bench of Justices R F
Nariman, Sanjiv Khanna and Surya Kant held that the amendments do not
violate Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and rejected the argument
that they are 'arbitrary, unreasonable, excessive and disproportionate'.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Pramod Kumar and Anr vs Zalak Singh and others

Topic : SC explains the test for relinquishment of claim under Order II Rule 2
CPC

Overview : The correct test in cases falling under Order II Rule 2, is "whether
the claim in the new suit is in fact founded upon a cause of action distinct from
that which was the foundation for the former suit", explained the Supreme
Court.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Pratap Gouda Patil and others v State of Karnataka and others

Topic : Karnataka Assembly case

Overview : In the first round of Karnataka assembly imborglio, the Supreme

Court passed an interim order holding that the fifteen rebel MLAs cannot be
compelled to attend assembly proceedings, and that they were at liberty to skip
attending house. The bench of CJI Gogoi, Justices Deepak Gupta and
Aniruddha Bose also refused to fix a time frame for the Speaker to decide on
the resignations submitted by the MLAs. The MLAs had approached the Court
contending that the Speaker had not acted on their resignations. Speaker
maintained that their resignations were a method to circumvent the
consequences of their defection. The SC bench comprising the then CJI Googi,
Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose held that the interim order was
passed to maintain 'constitutional balance'.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

R Dhanasundari @ R Rajeswari v A N Umakanth and others

Topic : When Can Transposition Of Defendants As Plaintiffs Be Permitted? SC

Answers

Overview : The Supreme Court has examined the scope of Rule 1A of Order
XXIII CPC which deals with power of a court to permit transposition of
defendants as plaintiff. The bench comprising Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and
Justice Dinesh Maheshwari observed that, if the plaintiff is seeking to withdraw
or to abandon his claim under Rule 1 of Order XXIII and the defendant seeking
transposition is having an interest in the subject-matter of the suit and thereby, a
substantial question to be adjudicated against the other defendant, then the
defendants can be transposed as plaintiffs.
Link : Click here to read the judgement

Radhamma and others v Muddukrishna and others

Topic : Undivided Share In Joint Family Can Be Disposed By Will As Per

Sec.30 Hindu Succession Act

Overview : The undivided interest of a Hindu in a joint family property can be

disposed of by Will as per Section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956, held
the Supreme Court while dismissing appeals from a partition suit. "Section 30
of the Act, permits the disposition by way of Will of a male Hindu in a
Mitakshara coparcenary property", observed the bench of Justices A M
Khanwilkar and Ajay Rastogi in the case

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Raghwendra Sharan Singh v Ram Prasanna Sight (D) through Lrs

Topic : Plaint Can Be Rejected If Suit Is Clearly Barred By Limitation

Overview : The Supreme Court has observed that a plaint can be rejected under
Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, if by considering the
averments, it is found that the suit is clearly barred by law of limitation.
"Considering the averments in the plaint if it is found that the suit is clearly
barred by law of limitation, the same can be rejected in exercise of powers
under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC", observed the Court.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Raj Kumar vs. State of UP

Topic : Accused Charged With Food Adulteration Cannot Be Acquitted Merely

Because Deficiency Was Marginal

Overview : The Supreme Court observed that if the standards prescribed under
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, are not complied with, the accused
charged with adulteration cannot be acquitted only on the ground that the
deficiency is marginal.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Rajendra Diwan v Pradeep Kumar Ranibala

Topic : State Legislature Cannot Enact Law Which Affects Jurisdiction Of

Supreme Court - SC Constitution Bench

Overview : The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has held that Section
13(2) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011, is unconstitutional as the
State Legislature lacked legislative competence to enact a provision providing
direct appeal to Supreme Court of India. The Bench comprising Justices Arun
Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M R Shah and Ravindra Bhat was
considering the reference made to it in Rajendra Diwan vs. Pradeep Kumar
Ranibala. It approved the view taken in HS Yadav vs. Shakuntala Devi Parakh,
by the bench comprising Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Ram Lal and others v Salig Ram and others

Topic : Irregularity In Local Commissioner's Report Not A Ground To Dismiss

The Suit

Overview : The Supreme Court has observed that a civil suit could not be
dismissed merely for some irregularity in the report of the Local Commissioner
appointed for local investigation. The issue before the Apex Court in the appeal
filed by plaintiff (Ram Lal vs. Salig Ram) was whether was justified in setting
aside the decree of First Appellate Court on the ground that the Local
Commissioner had not carried out demarcation in accordance with the
applicable instructions? The bench comprising Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre
and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari noted that the Local Commissioner omitted to
scrupulously follow the applicable instructions for carrying out such
demarcation and particularly omitted to fix three reference points on different
sides of the land in question. But the court disapproved the dismissal of the suit
by the High Court and observed that where the Court is disssatisfied with the
proceedings of such a Local Commissioner, it could direct such further inquiry
to be made as considered fit.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Ravi Setia vs Madan Lal and others

Topic : Specific Relief- Mere Extension Of Time For Deposit Will Not Absolve
Plaintiff Of Obligation To Prove Readiness & Willingness

Overview : The Supreme Court has held that mere extension of time for deposit
of balance sale consideration will not absolve the plaintiff of obligation to prove
readiness and willingness to perform his part in an agreement for sale. The grant
of extension of time cannot ipso facto be construed as otherwise demonstrating
readiness and willingness on part of the plaintiff, observed the bench
comprising Justices Navin Sinha and Indira Banerjee.
Link : Click here to read the judgement

Ravinder Kaur Grewal and others v Manjit Kaur

Topic : Person can maintain suit to claim title by adverse possession

Overview : In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court held that any person
who has perfected title by way of adverse possession, can file a suit for
restoration of possession in case of dispossession. The bench comprising Justice
Arun Mishra, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice MR Shah observed that plea
of acquisition of title by adverse possession can be taken by plaintiff under
Article 65 of the Limitation Act and there is no bar under the Limitation Act,
1963 to sue on aforesaid basis in case of infringement of any rights of a
plaintiff.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Rekha Murarka vs. State of West Bengal

Topic : Private Counsel Engaged By Victim To Assist Public Prosecutor Cannot

Make Oral Argument/Cross Examine Witnesses

Overview : The Supreme Court observed that, though a victim can engage a
private counsel to assist the prosecution, such counsel could not be given the
right to make oral arguments or examine and cross-examine witnesses. The
bench of Justice Mohan M. Shanthanagoudar and Justice Deepak Gupta
observed thus while upholding the Calcutta High Court judgment dismissing the
application made by a victim in a criminal case seeking permission for her
counsel to cross-examine witnesses after the Public Prosecutor.
Link : Click here to read the judgement

Reliance Communication Ltd and Others v State Bank of India and others,
WP(c)

Topic : Anil Ambani held for contempt in Reliance - Ericsson case

Overview : A bench of Justices R F Nariman and Vineet Saran held Anil

Ambani, Chairman of Reliance Communications, guilty of contempt of court
for defaulting payments to Ericsson as per the undertaking given to the Court.
The three Reliance Companies - RCom, Reliance Telecom and Reliance
InfraTel- were also held guilty of contempt, and fine of Rs One Crore each was
imposed on them. The Court granted an opportunity to Reliance companies to
purge contempt by paying Rs.453 crores to Ericsson within 4 weeks. Later,
Ambani avoided prison by clearing the dues.Meanwhile, another controversy
had occurred, when the order issued by Court on January 7 requiring personal
presence of Ambani and other officers was found to be tampered with. Though
the bench had specifically made it clear that personal appearance is not
dispensed with, the copy of the order uploaded in the official website of the top
court stated personal appearance is dispensed with. This led to an internal
enquiry, resulting in the summary dismissal of summarily dismissed two court
masters, Manav Sharma and Tapan Kumar Chakraborty.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Ritesh Sinha v State of U.P.

Topic : Magistrate Has Power To Direct An Accused To Give Voice Samples

During Investigation Without His Consent
Overview : In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court held that a judicial
magistrate can direct an accused to provide his voice samples for investigation
even without his consent. The three-judges bench led by the CJI thus settled the
confusion which arose out of the split verdict in the 2012 verdict by a two
judges bench.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Rojer Mathew v South Indian Bank Ltd

Topic : Strikes Down Rules Framed By Centre Under Section 184 Finance Act
2017 For Tribunals; Aadhar-Money Bill question referred.

Overview : Upheld the constitutional validity of Section 184 of the Finance Act
2017, which empowers the Central Government to frame rules relating to
appointment and service conditions of members of various tribunals. At the
same time, the five judges bench struck down the Rules already framed by the
Central Government under Section 184, and directed the formulation of new
rules. The Constitution Bench also doubted the correctness of 2018 decision
which treated Aadhaar Act as 'money bill' and referred the point to larger bench.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

S. Bhaskaran vs. Sebastian (Dead) through LRs

Topic : Executing Court Cannot Travel Beyond The Order Or Decree Under
Execution
Overview : The Supreme Court has reiterated a settled proposition that an
executing court cannot travel beyond the order or decree under execution.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Satvinder Singh alias Satvinder Singh Saluja and others v State of Bihar

Topic : Liability for consuming liquor in a private vehicle

Overview : The Supreme Court has held that a private vehicle is not exempted
from the definition of 'public place' under the Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act
2016. This means that consumption of liquor within a private vehicle in a public
place will be an offence under the prohibition laws in Bihar. "as per Bihar
Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 even a person consumes liquor outside the
State of Bihar and enter into the territory of Bihar and is found drunk or in a
state of drunkenness, he can be charged with offences under Section 37(b)", the
Court said.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Shaukathussain Mohammed Patel v Khatunben Mohmmedbhai Polara

Topic : Entirety Of Plaint Averments Have To Be Taken Into Account While

Considering A Plea Seeking Rejection Of Plaint

Overview : The entirety of the averments in the plaint have to be taken into
account while considering a plea seeking rejection of plaint, the Supreme Court
has reiterated.
Link : Click here to read the judgement

Shiv Sena and others v Union of India and others

Topic : Maharashtra Assembly - Urgent Floor Test Ordered To Curtail Horse

Trading, To Protect Democratic Values

Overview : The Supreme Court ordered urgent floor test in Maharashtra

Assembly for proving the majority of Devendra Fadnavis-led government. The
Court observed that urgent floor test was necessary to curtail unlawful practices
such as horse trading and also to avoid uncertainty and to effectuate smooth
running of democracy by ensuring a stable Government. "In a situation wherein,
if the floor test is delayed, there is a possibility of horse trading, it becomes
incumbent upon the Court to act to protect democratic values. An immediate
floor test, in such a case, might be the most effective mechanism to do so, the
bench of Justices NV Ramana, Ashok Bhushan and Sanjiv Khanna said in the
order.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Shivnarayan (D) by LRs v Maniklal (D) by LRs

Topic : Suit In Respect To Properties Situated In Jurisdiction Of Different

Courts Can Be Instituted In One Of Those Courts

Overview : The Supreme Court has observed that, a suit in respect to

immovable property or properties situate in jurisdiction of different courts may
be instituted in any court within whose local limits of jurisdiction, any portion
of the property or one or more properties may be situated. The bench
comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice KM Joseph observed that
interpretation of word "portion of the property" in Section 17 CPC cannot only
be understood in a limited and restrictive sense of being portion of one property
situated in jurisdiction of two courts.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Shri Badru (since deceased) through L R Hari Ram etc vs NTPC

Topic : Cross Objection Should Be Disposed On Merits Notwithstanding

Dismissal Of Appeal

Overview : The Supreme Court has observed that cross has to be disposed of on
its merits by assigning reasons notwithstanding the dismissal of the appeal.
"Rejection of cross objection without any discussion and reason cannot be
countenanced", observed the bench.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil V.Hon'ble Speaker, Karnataka Legislative Assembly

Topic : SC Upholds Disqualification Of 17 Karnataka MLAs; Resignation Not

To Affect Impact Of Defection

Overview : The Supreme Court upheld the decision of former Karnataka

Speaker's decision to disqualify 17 rebel MLAs on the ground of defection.
However, in partial relief to the MLAs, the apex court held that the duration of
disqualification cannot be till the end of the term of the house. This means that
they can re-contest in the upcoming by polls scheduled to take place in
December. A significant point in the Supreme Court's judgment in the
Karnataka MLAs disqualification case is the discussion on the interplay
between resignation and disqualification of a legislator. The apex court held that
resignation of a legislator will not efface the effect of disqualification if
defection has taken place before the date of resignation.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Sir Sobha Singh and Sons Pvt Ltd v Shashi Mohan Kapur (D) through LRs

Topic : Execution Petition Filed Without Certified Copy Of Decree

Maintainable

Overview : In an appeal filed before the Supreme Court, the bench comprising
Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice and Dinesh Maheshwari observed
that it is not necessary to file a copy of the decree along with execution
application unless the Court directs the decree holder to file a certified copy of
the decree.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Sitaram Yechury vs Union of India

Topic : Kashmir habeas orders

Overview : In the habeas corpus petition filed by CPI(M) Secretary Sitaram

Yechury challenging the detention of former J&K MLA M Y Tarigami, the
Supreme Court passed an order 'allowing' Yechury to travel to Srinagar to meet
the detenu. The bench consisting of the then CJI Gogoi, Justices Abdul Nazeer
and S A Bobde, did not ask the Centre about the grounds under which Tarigami
was placed under detention.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Sreedevi & Ors v Sarojam & Ors

Topic : Second Appeal - Obligatory For HC To Frame Substantial Question Of

Law Even If Lower Courts' Findings Are Perverse Per Se

Overview : The Supreme Court has observed that it is obligatory for a High
Court, while considering a Second Appeal, to frame substantial question of law
in second appeal even if lower courts' findings are perverse per se. The bench
comprising Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice Ajay Rastogi set aside a Kerala
High Court order, on the ground that it decided the Second Appeal without
formulating any substantial question of law.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Sri Prabodh Ch.Das and Anr vs Mahamaya Das and another

Topic : Second Appeal Cannot Be Dismissed On Merits When Appellant Is

Unrepresented On The Day Fixed For Hearing

Overview : The Supreme Court has observed that a High Court cannot dismiss a
second appeal on merits where the appellant is unrepresented on the date fixed
for hearing. If the appellant does not appear, the Court may if it deems fit
dismiss the appeal for default of appearance but it does not have the power to
dismiss the appeal on merits, the bench observed.
Link : Click here to read the judgement

State of Andhra Pradesh and others v B Ranga Reddy (D) through LRs

Topic : Filing Of Cross Objections By Defendants Not Necessary To Dispute

Adverse Findings In The Dismissed Suit

Overview : The Supreme Court has observed that it is not necessary that
defendants should file cross objections to the appeal against dismissal of a suit
to dispute certain findings adverse to them in the judgment appealed against.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

State Of Punjab vs. Baljinder Singh

Topic : NDPS - Non-Compliance Of Section 50 During 'Personal Search'

Cannot Invalidate Recovery From Vehicle

Overview : The Supreme Court observed that merely because there was non-
compliance of Section 50 of the Narcotic and Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act as far as "personal search" of the accused was concerned, no
benefit can be extended so as to invalidate the effect of recovery from the search
of the vehicle. The bench comprising Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice Indu
Malhotra and Justice Krishna Murari observed that the mandate of Section 50 of
the NDPS Act is confined to "personal search" and not to search of a vehicle or
a container or premises.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

State of Rajasthan vs. Shiv Dayal

Topic : Second Appeal Not To Be Dismissed Merely On The Ground Of

'Concurrent Findings'

Overview : The Supreme Court has observed that a High Court cannot dismiss a
second appeal merely on the ground that that there is a concurrent finding of
two Courts (whether of dismissal or decreeing of the suit), and thus such finding
becomes unassailable.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

State of Telangana vs. Sri Managipet @ Mangipet Sarveshwar Reddy

Topic : Preliminary Inquiry Not Required To Be Mandatorily Conducted In All

Corruption Cases

Overview : The Supreme Court observed that a preliminary inquiry before

registration of First Information Report (FIR) is not required to be mandatorily
conducted in all corruption cases. It said that the judgment in Lalita Kumari
does not state that proceedings cannot be initiated against an accused without
conducting a preliminary inquiry

Link : Click here to read the judgement

State of West Bengal v Calcutta Club Ltd and Chief Commissioner of Central
Excise & Service and others v Ranchi Club Ltd
Topic : Levy of sales tax/service tax on supply of food and drinks by
incorporated clubs

Overview : The Supreme Court held that there is no levy of sales tax on the
supply of food and beverages by members' clubs, whether incorporated and
unincorporated, to its members. Answering a reference in the case State of West
Bengal v Calcutta Club Ltd, a three judges bench comprising Justices R F
Nariman, Surya Kant and Rama Subramanian held that the "doctrine of
mutuality" , as propounded in the case CTO v. Young Men's Indian Assn.,
(1970) 1 SCC 462, continued to operate even after the 46th amendment to the
Constitution which inserted Article 366(29-A). The Court also held that services
given by an incorporated club to its members are exempted from service tax.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Surinder Pal Soni v Sohan Lal (D) through LRs

Topic : Specific Performance Decree Not To Be Rescinded Merely Because

Plaintiff Deposited Balance Sale Consideration After Appeal

Overview : The Supreme Court has found fault with the judgment of a Punjab
and Haryana High Court which had held that a decree for specific performance
to be inexecutable as the balance sale consideration was deposited by the
plaintiff after the appeal, beyond the period fixed by the trial court. The SC
bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and Indira Banerjee held that the trial
court's decree had merged with the appeal court's decree. Hence, there was no
delay on the part of plaintiff in depositing the balance sale consideration.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Surinder Singh Deswal @ Col. S.S. Deswal vs. Virender Gandhi

Topic : Section 148 Of Negotiable Instruments Act Has Retrospective Effect

Overview : In an important judgment, the Supreme Court held that Section 148
of the Negotiable Instruments Act as amended, shall be applicable in respect of
the appeals against the order of conviction and sentence for the offence under
Section 138 of the N.I. Act, even in a case where the criminal complaints for the
offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act were filed prior to 2018 amendment
Act i.e., prior to 01.09.2018.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Swiss Ribbons Pvt Ltd & Anr v Union of India, WP(c)

Topic : Constitutionality of IBC upheld

Overview : A two judges bench comprising Justices R F Nariman and Navin

Sinha rejected a bunch of petitions which challenged the constitutional validity
of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016. The Court held that distinction
between operational creditors and financial creditors were based on intelligible
differentia. The Court also upheld the validity of Sections 12A (prescribing
threshold for CoC approval for withdrawal of resolution application) and 29A
(on bar of 'related persons' in participating in resolution bids).

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Tanu Ram Bora v Promod Ch.Das (D) through LRs and others
Topic : Sec.43 TP Act - Transfer By Erroneous Representation Of Title Will
Hold Good If Transferor Acquires Title Later

Overview : Applying the principle of "feeding the grant by estoppel" under

Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, the Supreme Court granted relief to
a party, who was misled to purchase a property by erroneous representation of
title by the vendor.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Tek Singh v Shashi Verma and anr

Topic : Section 115 CPC - Revision Petition Not Maintainable Against

Interlocutory Orders

Overview : The Supreme Court has reiterated that revision petitions filed under
Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not maintainable against
interlocutory orders. We are constrained to observe that every legal canon has
been thrown to the winds, this is how the bench comprising Justice Rohinton
Fali Nariman and Justice Vineet Saran described the impugned judgment in the
appeal which allowed a revision petition against an interlocutory order.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co Ltd v Smt Mousumi Bhattacharjee

and others

Topic : Ambit of 'Accidental Insurance' defined

Overview : Explaining the ambit of 'accidental insurance', the Supreme Court
observed that where a disease is caused or transmitted by insect bite/virus in the
natural course of events, it would not be covered by the definition of an
accident. But, in a given case or circumstance, the affliction or bodily condition
may be regarded as an accident where its cause or course of transmission is
unexpected and unforeseen, the bench comprising Justice DY Chandrachud and
Justice Hemant Gupta observed while dealing with what it called an 'interesting
question of law'.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

The State Of Arunachal Pradesh Vs. Ramchandra Rabidas @ Ratan Rabidas &
Anr

Topic : Road Traffic Offences Can Be Prosecuted Under Both IPC & Motor
Vehicles Act

Overview : The Supreme Court observed that road traffic offences can be
prosecuted under Motor Vehicles Act as well as Indian Penal Code. The bench
comprising Justice Indu Malhotra and Justice Khanna observed thus while
setting aside the direction issued by the Gauhati High Court to States of Assam,
Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh that
road traffic offences shall be dealt with only under the provisions of the Motor
Vehicles Act and not under the provisions of Indian Penal Code.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Union of India & ors v. Tarsem Singh and ors

Topic : Sec 3J Of National Highways Act, to the extent it excludes solatium &
interest as per Land Acquisition Act, unconstitutional

Overview : The Supreme Court has declared Section 3J of the National

Highways Act 1956, to the extent it excludes solatium and interest as per Land
Acquisition Act 1894 to acquisitions done under the NH Act to be
unconstitutional. "We, therefore, declare that the provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act relating to solatium and interest contained in Section 23(1A)
and (2) and interest payable in terms of section 28 proviso will apply to
acquisitions made under the National Highways Act. Consequently, the
provision of Section 3J is, to this extent, violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India and, therefore, declared to be unconstitutional", held the
bench consisting of Justices Rohinton Nariman and Surya Kant.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Union of India v Association of Unified Telecom Service Providers of India

Topic : SC Allows Centre's Plea To Recover Adjusted Gross Revenue Of Rs

92k cr From Telecom Companies

Overview : In a setback to telecom service providers, the Supreme Court on

Thursday allowed the Centre's plea to recover adjusted gross revenue (AGR) of
about Rs 92,000 crore from them. A three-judge bench, headed by Justice Arun
Mishra, upheld the definition of adjusted gross revenue formulated by the
Department of Telecom (DoT).

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Union of India v State of Maharashtra and others

Topic : Centre's review against dilution of SC/ST Act allowed

Overview : A three judge bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Justices

Arun Mishra, M R Shah and B R Gavai allowed Centre's petition seeking
review of its March 20, 2018 judgement which had virtually diluted provisions
of arrest under the SC/ST Act. The Court observed that powers under Article
142 of the Constitution could not have been exercised to pass directions against
the statute. The two-judges bench should not have framed guidelines as it is
within legislature's domain to do so, the Court said. It observed that the
protective nature of the Act was necessary in view of the abuses to which
people from marginalized communities are being subjected to.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Union of India v Vivekanand Tiwari, SLP(c)

Topic : Reservation in teaching posts to be applied subject-wise in Universities

Overview : The Supreme Court rejected Centre's challenge against a 2017

judgment of Allahabad High Court which had held that reservations in teaching
posts in Universities are to be applied by taking subject/discipline as the unit,
instead of university. A bench of Justices U U Lalit and Indira Banerjee refused
leave to appeal to Ministry of Human Resources Department to challenge the
High Court judgment delivered in the case Vivekanand Tiwari v Union of India
on April 7, 2017. On February 27, the same bench dismissed Centre's review
against the decision. In the Monsoon Session, Parliament passed a bill -"The
Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Teachers' Cadre) Bill, 2019"- to
treat 'University/ College' as the unit of reservation roster for teaching posts
instead of 'Department/ Subject', to overturn the effect of this decision.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Union of India vs. Ankit Ashok Jalan

Topic : COFEPOSA - Detention Order Can Be Passed Even If A Person Is In

Judicial Custody

Overview : The Supreme Court observed that even if a person is in judicial

custody, he can be detained Detention Laws like COFEPOSA. The Court
further noted that the detenus were granted bail by the Court on the very date
the orders of detention were quashed by the High Court. Therefore, the
apprehension in the mind of the Detaining Authority that the detenus are likely
to be released on bail was well founded and fortified, said the bench while
setting aside the High Court order.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Varinder Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh

Topic : Acquittal If IO & Informant Same Person - Benefit Of 'Mohan Lal'

Judgment Not Available To Cases Prior To It

Overview : In an important judgment, the Supreme Court observed that all

pending criminal prosecutions, trials and appeals prior to the law laid down in
the judgment in Mohan Lal vs. State of Punjab (acquittal if investigator-
informant is the same person), shall continue to be governed by the individual
facts of the case. Later, a two judge bench expressed its disagreement with the
view taken by a three-judge bench in Mohan Lal vs. State of Punjab where it
held that that the accused is entitled to acquittal if informant and the investigator
in NDPS cases is the same person. The matter was therefore referred to larger
bench. A Constitution Bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra is considering the
matter at present.
Link : Click here to read the judgement

Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and others v The State of Gujarat

Topic : Magistrate can invoke power under section 156(3) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure even at post-cognizance stage

Overview : A three judge bench of the Supreme Court virtually overruled a 43

year old precedent and held that Magistrate can invoke power under section
156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure even at post-cognizance stage. The
bench headed by Justice RF Nariman held that this judgment was rendered
without adverting to the definition of "investigation" in Section 2(h) of the
CrPC. It was observed that the finding in law in the said that the judgment that
the power under Section 156(3) CrPC can only be exercised at the pre-
cognizance stage is erroneous.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Wildlife First and others v MoEF and others, WP(c)

Topic : Forest Rights Act - Eviction of over 1 million forest dwellers ordered;
later stayed

Overview : In this case, the Supreme Court is assessing the constitutional

validity of the Forest Rights Act 2006. A bench of Justices Arun Mishra, Navin
Sinha and Indira Banerjee directed states to ensure the eviction of all those
persons from forestland whose claims under the Forest Rights Act have been
rejected. The order would have impacted over 1 million forest dwelling tribals.
The order led to a lot of controversy and confusion, as most states were yet to
streamline the claims and appeals processes under the Forest Rights Act. Later,
on an application by the Central Government, the same bench stayed the
eviction order. The matter is at present pending, and the Court has sought for
data from states regarding claims under FRA.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Yashwant Sinha & Ors. V. Central Bureau Of Investigation

Topic : SC Dismisses Rafale Review Petitions

Overview : The Supreme Court dismissed the review petitions filed against the
December 14, 2018 judgment which declined to order probe into the corruption
allegations regarding the deal to procure 36 Rafale jets by Indian Government
form French company Dassault Aviation. The bench comprising CJI Ranjan
Gogoi, Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph observed that the review petitions
filed by Advocate Prashant Bhushan, former Union Ministers Yashwant Sinha
and Arun Shourie lacked merits. Justice K M Joseph observed in his separate
judgment in the Rafale review that the main verdict will not stand in the way of
CBI taking lawful action on the complaint raising corruption allegations on the
Rafale deal, subject to getting approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of
Corruption Act. The same bench also closed the contempt case against Congress
MP Rahul Gandhi for 'chowkidhar chor hain' remarks, accepting his apology.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao vs State Of A.P

Topic : Reservation Review: SC

Overview : The Supreme Court of India has ruled the January 2000 order of the
Governor of the erstwhile state of Andhra Pradesh which provided 100%
reservation to Scheduled Tribes (ST) candidates in posts of school teachers in
Scheduled Areas, unconstitutional.

The court also noted that within the Other Backward Castes (OBCs) and the
Scheduled Castes (SCs) and STs, reservation benefits are not reaching the truly
deserving.

The Bench, comprising Justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M
R Shah and Aniruddha Bose, agreed with Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan that
the lists of those entitled to reservation must be revised from time to time.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Indore Development Authority vs Manoharlal And Ors. Etc.

Topic : SC Order on Land Acquisition

Overview : The Supreme Court of India reaffirmed its February 2018 ruling on
Section 24 on land acquisition compensation awards in the Indore Development
Authority case.

The five-judge Bench also overruled an earlier 2014 ruling under the Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act of 2013.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Indian Social Action Forum (INSAF) vs Union Of India

Topic : Centre Cannot Brand Organisations ‘Political’

Overview : The Supreme Court recently held that the central government cannot
brand an organisation political and deprive it of its right to receive foreign funds
for using legitimate forms of dissent to aid a public cause.

The judgement was delivered in response to a petition filed by the Indian Social
Action Forum (INSAF) challenging certain provisions of the Foreign
Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA), 2010 and the Foreign Contribution
(Regulation) Rules of 2011.

SC observed that an organisation, which supports the cause of a group of

citizens agitating for their rights without a political goal or objective, cannot be
penalised by being declared as an organisation of a political nature.

However, foreign funding could be stopped if an organisation took recourse to

these forms of protest to score a political goal. Organisations with political
objectives in their memorandum of association or bye-laws cannot be permitted
access to foreign funds because of their clear political nature.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Rambabu Singh Thakur vs Sunil Arora

Topic : Criminalisation of politics

Overview : The Supreme Court (SC) has ordered political parties to publish the
entire criminal history of their candidates for Assembly and Lok Sabha
elections along with the reasons that forced them to field suspected criminals.

The order was a reply to the contempt petition about the general disregard
shown by political parties to a 2018 Constitution Bench judgment (Public
Interest Foundation v. Union of India) to publish the criminal details of their
candidates in their respective websites and print as well as electronic media for
public awareness.

The SC passed an order while exercising powers under Articles 129 and 142 of
the Constitution which deals with the contempt power of the Supreme Court and
enforcement of its decrees and orders.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Mukesh Kumar vs The State Of Uttarakhand

Topic : Reservation in the matter of promotions in public posts is not a

fundamental right.

Overview : The Supreme Court has ruled that reservation in the matter of
promotions in public posts is not a fundamental right, and a state cannot be
compelled to offer the quota if it chooses not to. The idea that reservation is not
a right may be in consonance with the Constitution, however, the government is
still under the obligation to perform Reservation for vulnerable sections of
society.

Referring to Articles 16(4) and 16(4A), the Supreme Court held that
Reservation programmes allowed in the Constitution are derived from “enabling
provisions” and are not rights as such. No mandamus can be issued by the court
directing state governments to provide reservations. There is neither a basic
right to reservations nor a duty by the State government to provide it.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Sk. Md. Rafique vs Managing Committee, Contai Rahamania High Madrasah

and Others

Topic : State can Regulate Minority Institutions

Overview : The Supreme Court held that the state has the rights to introduce a
regulatory regime in the national interest to provide minority educational
institutions with well-qualified teachers so that they can achieve excellence in
education.

Minority institutions have the fundamental right under Article 30 of the

Constitution to establish and administer their educational institutions according
to their choice. However, they cannot ignore the regulations recommended by
the state.

The court held that the regulatory law should be a balance of the dual objectives
of ensuring the standard of excellence as well as preserving the right of
minorities to establish and administer their educational institutions.

Link : Click here to read the judgement

Christian Medical College vellore association vs Union Of India

Topic : Rights of Minority Institutes not Absolute. Regulating academics and
imposing reasonable restrictions to ensure educational standards is in national
and public interest.

Overview : The Supreme Court of India gave its judgement on the admission
criteria of minority institutions. It held that National Eligibility-cum-Entrance
Test (NEET) is mandatory for admission to all the medical colleges and the
right of minority institutions is not absolute and is amenable to regulation.

The SC held that the fundamental and religious rights of minorities and rights
available under Article 30 are not violated by provisions carved out in Section
10D of the MCI and Dentists Act.

The right to freedom of trade or business is not absolute. It is subject to

reasonable restriction in the interest of the students’ community to promote
merit, recognition of excellence, and to curb the malpractices. A uniform
entrance test qualifies the test of proportionality and is reasonable.

The NEET is mandatory for admission to medical colleges run by religious and
linguistic minority communities and it would apply for both aided and unaided
medical colleges administered by minorities.