05/02/2016
New e journal Supreme Court decision weekly 10 decision reporting.(Gmail)
Current's
CASE POINTER
HEADNOTES WEEKLY - SUPREME COURT
(e-Journal)
With Link to Judgements
Issue No : 5 of 2016
Date of Issue : 30/01/2016
Table of Cases
20/01/2016
Vishal N. Kalsaria vs. Bank Of India & Ors.
20/01/2016
Venkatesh Construction Company vs. Karnataka Vidyuth Karkhane Limited (KAVIKA)
18/01/2016
Ganapathy & Co., Bangalore vs. The Commissioner, Income Tax Bangalore
07/01/2016
K. S. Sanjeev (dead)by Lrs. Etc. vs. State Of Kerala And Anr.
04/01/2016
The Management Of Narendra & Company Private Limited vs. The Workmen Of Narendra & Company
29/12/2015
LIC Of India vs. Insure Policy Plus Services Pvt. Ltd. & Ors
16/12/2015
Prem Nath Bali vs. Registrar, High Court Of Delhi & Anr.
15/12/2015
Commissioner Of Central Excise, Mysore vs. TVS Motors Company Ltd.
08/12/2015
A. Andisamy Chettiar vs. A. Subburaj Chettiar
17/11/2015
Pawan Kumar Agarwala vs. General Manager-II & Appointing Auth. State Bank Of India & Ors.
2016(1)CPSC52
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
[Before V Gopala Gowda ; Amitava Roy, JJ]
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 52 OF 2016
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.8060 of 2015) dated 20/01/2016
Vishal N. Kalsaria vs. Bank Of India & Ors.
Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Sec. 55(2) - Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Sec. 13(2), Sec. 13(4), Sec. 14, Sec. 35 - Transfer of Property Act, 1872 - Sec. 106 - Dispossession - Protection of rights of tenants - Issue whether tenant can be dispossessed by secured creditor bank from the tenant tenanted property under the grab of SARFEASI Act - Held - No - Landlord cannot be permitted to do indirectly what he has been barred from doing under Rent Control Act, more so when the two legislations, operates in completely different field - In case of default of loan, the maximum burnt will be borne by the unsuspecting tenant, who would be evicted from the possession of the tenanted property by bank - Neither landlord nor bank can be permitted to exploit the fact of non registration of the tenancy deed against the tenant - Appeal allowed.
(Para 24, 25, 30)
Law Point - Once tenancy is created, a tenant can be evicted only after following the process of law, as prescribed under the provisions of Rent Control Act - A tenant cannot be arbitrarily evicted by using the provisions of SARFEASI Act as that would amount to stultifying the statutory right of protection given to tenant.
To View Full Text of Judgement Click Here
2016(1)CPSC45
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
[Before T S Thakur ; A K Sikri ; R Banumathi, JJ]
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 461-462 OF 2016
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NOS.29680-29681 OF 2010) dated 20/01/2016
Venkatesh Construction Company vs. Karnataka Vidyuth Karkhane Limited (KAVIKA)
Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sec. 34 - Suit for claim of damages - Appellant was civil contractor who was awarded tender by respondent for work - It was allegation of the appellant that respondent in the mid of work, changed the plan of work and thereafter did not respond due to which the appellant suffered huge loss - Trial Court after appreciation of entire evidence on record, decreed suit in favor of appellant and awarded compensation of Rs 1,00,000/- against the claim of Rs 6,00,000/- with interest - High Court quashed the order of trial Court - High Court reversed the decree without discussing oral and documentary evidence and several grounds raised before the trial Court - Challenged - Held - Appellant Court may not interfere with the finding of the trail Court unless the finding recorded by the trial Court is erroneous or the trial Court ignored the evidence on record - High Court veered away from the main issue and went on the elaborate on the law of arbitration and the mode of setting aside the arbitral award is not warranted - Without considering oral and documentary evidence, the High Court erred in interfering with the factual findings recorded by the trial Court and impugned order is set aside - Appeal allowed.
(Para 5, 16)
Law Point - Appellant Court may not interfere with the finding of the trail Court unless the finding recorded by the trial Court is erroneous or the trial Court ignored the evidence on record.
To View Full Text of Judgement Click Here
2016(1)CPSC33
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
[Before Ranjan Gogoi ; P C Pant, JJ]
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1964 OF 2008 dated 18/01/2016
Ganapathy & Co., Bangalore vs. The Commissioner, Income Tax Bangalore
Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sec. 256(2) - Disallowance of service charge - Assesee/Appellant claimed the benefit of disallowance of the service charges paid to UTC - Assessing officer disallowed the said claim on ground that in the proceeding arising out of the assessment order for the previous year i.e 1983-84 the said claim had been negatived by the CIT in appeal - Assessing officer, in addition also took note of the fact that the membership in the assesse firm and UTC is common and one K L Srihari had sizeable holding in each of two firms - Assessing officer also had regard to the fact, while disallowing said claim, that the assessee had failed to provide proof of service rendered by UTC in the period covered by the Assessment Year in question - Conclusion of assessing officer was upheld in appeal - In appeal before ITAT, the authority reversed the finding on ground that order of CIT in the earlier assessment proceeding, relied upon by the assessing officer, was reversed in appeal by the ITAT and also that in the course of said earlier assessment proceeding of the legal effect of the advice of CA to reduce the incidence of income tax was found to be permissible in law - High Court reversed the said conclusion of ITAT - Challenged - Held - View taken by the High Court that the assesse was not entitled to the benefit of donation - No error found in judgment of high Court - Appeal dismissed.
(Para 4, 7, 9, 10)
To View Full Text of Judgement Click Here
2016(1)CPSC27
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
[Before Kurian Joseph ; R F Nariman, JJ]
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.3610-3612 OF 2007
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.24535-37 of 2003) WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3613 OF 2007 dated 07/01/2016
K. S. Sanjeev (dead)by Lrs. Etc. vs. State Of Kerala And Anr.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sec. 4, Sec. 11, Sec. 18 - Land acquired for public purpose - Notification u/s. 4 issued - Award - Compensation awarded @ 11,000/- per cent - Reference - Dismissed - Challenged - Acquired land is situated within limit of Municipal Corporation - It is situated near road area and is a dried land - If the land is otherwise comparable, merely because the witness was not factually correct on description, the evidence can't be discarded - While fixing the value of land, body language of witness or his conduct are not at all relevant - Fixation is mainly based on factual ground as depicted from documents - Held, Appellant entitled for value of land @ 17,250/- % - Appeal allowed.
(Para 1, 4, 5)
Law Point - Merely because the witness was not factually correct on description, the evidence cannot be discarded.
To View Full Text of Judgement Click Here
2016(1)CPSC19
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
[Before Kurian Joseph ; R F Nariman, JJ]
CIVIL APPEAL NO.14 OF 2016
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 13908/2013) dated 04/01/2016
The Management Of Narendra & Company Private Limited vs. The Workmen Of Narendra & Company
Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 226 - Workman terminated from service - Complaint - Labour Court ordered reinstatement in service of Appellant with 50% back wages - Challenged by employer - Industry closed down in January 1995 - High Court direct Respondent to pay back wages till January 1995 - Challenged by employees - Division Bench ordered to pay back wages till 1999 - Challenged - Facts on record shows that the industry was closed down in January 1995 - Division Bench was not justified in entering a different finding without any further material on record to prove the same - Merely because another view is possible, there should be no interference with order passed by single Judge, unless both sides agree for a fairer approach - Held, Impugned order of Division Bench is quashed but maintained of single Judge - Appeal partly allowed.
(Para 2, 3, 4)
Law Point - Merely because another view is possible, there should be no interference with order passed by single Judge, unless both sides agree for a fairer approach.
To View Full Text of Judgement Click Here
2015(12)CPSC58
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
[Before Vikramajit Sen ; Shiva Kirti Singh, JJ]
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8542 OF 2009 dated 29/12/2015
LIC Of India vs. Insure Policy Plus Services Pvt. Ltd. & Ors
General Clauses Act, 1897 - Sec. 6 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Sec. 60 - Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 - Sec. 37 - Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act, 1999 - Sec. 3 - Insurance Act, 1938 - Life insurance policies - The provisional registration shall be accorded permanence and/or full registration - An insurable interest is a precondition or essential element at the time of taking out the scheme but not thereafter, including at the point of any reassignment - Section 38(1) prescribed the procedure by which assignment were to be effected, namely, by way of an endorsement or by means of a separate instrument - It is thus clear that on transfer or assignment of a policy and on the requisite procedure being complied with, the assignee alone has an absolute interest in the policy - Language of the extant Section 38 cannot be interpreted to mean that this is what Section 38 had meant all along - Held, That it is not open to the Appellants to charter a course which is different to the postulation in the Insurance Act, by means of its own Circulars - Appeal dismissed.
(Para 1, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14)
Law Point - Section 38(1) prescribed the procedure by which assignm were to be effected, namely, by way of an endorsement or by means of a separate instrument.
2016(0)AIR(SC)182;
2015(12)CPSC46
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DELHI HIGH COURT
[Before J Chelameswar ; A M Sapre, JJ]
CIVIL APPEAL No. 958 OF 2010 dated 16/12/2015
Prem Nath Bali vs. Registrar, High Court Of Delhi & Anr.
Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 - Rule 14 - Computation of Pension - Appellant was suspended from the services and departmental enquiry was conducted - Completion of enquiry took place more than 9 years - Appellant was punished with punishment of compulsory retirement - Appellant made claim that period of suspension should be added while computing pension - Rejected - Challenged - Held - Delay in completion of departmental proceeding was not wholly attributable to the appellant but it was equally attributable to the respondents as well - Due to such unreasonable delay, the appellant naturally suffered a lot because he and his family had to survive only on suspension allowance for a long time - Reasons of Delay on part of respondent is not explained - Period of pension should have been taken into account by respondent for determining the appellant's pension and it is ordered - Appeal partly allowed.
(Para 7, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35)
Law Point - Every employer must make sincere endeavor to conclude the departmental inquiry proceedings once initiated against the delinquent employee within a reasonable time by giving priority to such proceedings and as for as possible it should be concluded within six months as an outer limit.
2016(0)AIR(SC)101;
To View Full Text of Judgement Click Here
2015(12)CPSC36
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
[Before A K Sikri ; R F Nariman, JJ]
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5155-5156 OF 2007 dated 15/12/2015
Commissioner Of Central Excise, Mysore vs. TVS Motors Company Ltd.
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - Sec. 4 - Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 - Sales service charges - Assessee sells their goods directly to the customers through sales depots spread throughout the country - Excise duty is payable on the 'transaction value' as per the provisions of Section 4 of the Act - Definition of transaction value is given in Section 4(3)(d) of the Act - Provision as to after sales service, therefore, benefited not only the appellant; it was a provision of mutual benefit to the appellant and the dealer - Where manufacturer himself does the ASS and incurs any expenditure thereon, the same is not deductible from the price charged by him from his buyer - Sale of the goods would not be made unless the buyer is also to pay an additional amount to the manufacturer, apart from the price of the goods - Held, That the sequitur of the aforesaid discussion would be to hold that PDI charges and free ASS charges would not be included in the assessable value under Section 4 of the Act for the purposes of paying excise duty - Appeal allowed.
(Para 1, 4, 6, 8, 11, 19)
Law Point - Pre-Delivery Inspection Charges and free After Sales Service charges would not be included in the assessable value under Section 4 of the Act for the purposes of paying excise duty.
To View Full Text of Judgement Click Here
2015(12)CPSC14
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MADRAS HIGH COURT
[Before Dipak Misra ; P C Pant, JJ]
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 14055 OF 2015
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 7798 of 2015) dated 08/12/2015
A. Andisamy Chettiar vs. A. Subburaj Chettiar
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Sec. 107(1)(d), Order XLI, Rule 27 - Application for additional evidence - Suit for permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property - Suit property was purchased by father of plaintiff - Claim of the plaintiff that suit property was devolved upon him by virtue of will in his favor executed by his father - Trial Court held that plaintiff failed to prove the ex*****on of will and dismissed the suit - In appeal, Plaintiff filed application for scientific investigation to find out whether signature of his father was genuine or not - Appellate Court allowed application - Defendant challenged the order of allowing application before High Court - High Court in revision set aside the order - Challenged - Held - When appeal is pending before lower appellate Court, the impugned order passed by High Court cannot be upheld and the same is set aside - Appeal disposed of.
(Para 3, 11, 16, 19, 20)
Law Point - Admissibility of additional evidence does not depend upon the relevancy to the issue on hand, or on the fact, whether the applicant had an opportunity for adducing such evidence at an earlier stage or not but it depends upon whether or not the appellate Court requires the evidence sought to be adduced to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause.
2016(0)AIR(SC)79;
To View Full Text of Judgement Click Here
2015(11)CPSC37
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
[Before V Gopala Gowda ; Amitava Roy, JJ]
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 13448 OF 2015
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 9833 of 2015) dated 17/11/2015
Pawan Kumar Agarwala vs. General Manager-II & Appointing Auth. State Bank Of India & Ors.
Termination from services - Challenged on ground of non supply of list of witnesses and document to employee - Court below passed order whereby Court ordered reduction of one increment to employee - Challenged - Held - Finding of enquiry officer on the charges is vitiated on account of non-compliance of the statutory rules and the principles of natural justice - In absence of evidence, order of reinstatement sans full backwages is unjustified in law - At the best the high Court should have made deduction of amount of pension received by the appellant after awarding full back wages for the period in question - Appeal allowed.
Law Point - In absence of evidence, order of reinstatement sans full backwages is unjustified in law.
2015(0)AIR(SCW)6910;
To View Full Text of Judgement Click Here
Published by :
Prashant Pandya
for Current Infotech
(A unit of Current Publications)
8, Karanjia House, 653, JSS Road, Marine Lines (E), Mumbai 400 002
E-Mail : [email protected].
Webstore : www.booksonlaw.com
Copyright : Current Infotech, Mumbai
------------------
Our Aim to provide Law Books from all States and Languages on single platform.
