2010 SCCL.COM 148(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 1499 of 2007)
Jiten Besra Appellant versus State of West Bengal Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 3/10/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302 — punishment of murder — conviction and sentence under — for commission of murder by the appellant of his parents-in-law — relying on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the trial Court sentenced the accused/appellant to life imprisonment under Section 302 — High Court affirmed the conviction/sentence orders of the trial Court — appeal — evidence of the prosecution witnesses had nowhere suggested that there was a fierce enmity between the accused and the deceased persons — as per the evidence of the PWs, the accused was on visiting terms with his parents-in-law — blood stained clothes of the accused or deceased persons were never sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory to establish that it was the blood of the deceased that was allegedly found on the clothes of the accused — this Court observed that the alleged incriminating circumstances not established — impugned judgements of the trial Court and of the High Court set aside — appeal allowed — acquittal on benefit of doubt.

2010 SCCL.COM 147(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 1348 of 2004)
Dharamveer and others Appellant(s) versus State of U.P. Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 3/9/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.K. Prasad.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 148 and 307/149 — rioting with deadly weapons, attempt to murder with common object — conviction and sentence under — relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, Medical Officer and post-mortem report, the trial Court convicted the accused/appellants under Sections 148 and 307/149 and awarded them to undergo concurrent sentences — High Court affirmed the conviction/sentence orders of the trial Court — appeal — no delay in lodging the FIR — held that mere delay in receipt of the Special Report, in no way causes doubt to the case of the prosecution. Further held, the fact that eye-witnesses not suffered any injury will not make their evidence untrustworthy — appeal dismissed.

2010 SCCL.COM 143(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 1522 of 2008)
Javed Masood and another Appellants versus State of Rajasthan Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 3/9/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. Sudershan Reddy and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 148, 201 and 302 — rioting armed with deadly weapons, giving false evidence to screen the offender and punishment of murder — conviction under — for commission of murder by inflicting blows on the chest, hands, neck, face and back of the deceased with deadly weapons — High Court confirmed the conviction of the appellants only under Section 302 IPC and acquitted them of the rest of the charges — appeal — whether the courts below committed any manifest error in relying on the evidence of PW-5, PW-13 and PW-14 to convict the appellants for the charge under Section 302 IPC — prosecution never declared PWs 6, 18, 29 and 30 'hostile' as their evidence did not supported the prosecution — this Court found no reason to discard the evidence of PW-6/independent witness whose testimony made the presence of PWs 5, 13 and 14 highly doubtful at the scene of occurrence — held no reliance to be placed on the evidence of PW-5 in order to convict the appellants under Section 302, IPC as he being a highly interested and partisan witness — impugned conviction/sentence orders set aside — appeal allowed — acquittal.

2010 SCCL.COM 144(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 448 of 2010 Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8045 of 2009)
Sangappa and others Appellants versus State of Karnataka Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 3/8/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. Sudershan Reddy and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 304-Part II read with Section 34 — culpable homicide not amounting to murder with common intention — FIR lodged against four accused persons alleging that all the accused trespassed into the fields with the common intention of committing murder of the deceased — charges framed against the accused under Sections 447, 504, and 302 read with Section 34 — trial Court acquitted all the accused from the charges framed and held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt — the High Court reversed the order of acquittal in relation to all the appellants and convicted them under Section 304 (Part-II) read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine — appeal — the High Court neither discussed nor re-appreciated the evidence of PW-1 who is the only eye witness to the incident and also not even noticed the nature of injuries on the body of the deceased — nothing on record as to the basis on which the High Court arrived at conclusion that the accused guilty of offence under Section 304 (Part-II) and not for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC — impugned orders of the High Court set aside and matter remitted back for fresh consideration and disposal in accordance with law — appeal allowed.

2010 SCCL.COM 142(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 2012 of 2002 With Civil Appeal No. 2011 and 2014 of 2002)
Chittoor Chegaiah and others Appellant(s) versus Pedda Jeeyangar Mutt and another Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 3/8/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam and Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu.
Subject Index: Andhra Pradesh (A.A.) Tenancy Act, 1956 — Section 13 — eviction petition — the Head of the plaintiff/respondent-Mutt granted a permanent lease under a registered lease deed — as no rent received by the Mutt in respect of disputed property, the Mutt filed suit to establish its right, title and possession which was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that the appellants have perfected the title in respect of tenancy rights by adverse possession and the suit was filed beyond the period of limitation — Mutt filed suit under the A.P. Tenancy Act against the appellants for eviction on the ground that the appellants defaulted in payment of rent from 1372 fasli — appellate Court allowed the eviction petition and held that the tenants committed default in payment of rent from fasli 1372 and never paid rent, thus, liable to be evicted under Section 13 — the High Court affirmed the orders of the appellate Court by holding that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the appellants and the Mutt, not barred by any res judicata — appeal — whether a permanent lease gives rise to a tenant-landlord relationship within the meaning of the Act — held Yes — the High Court in no uncertain terms, held that the title of ownership belongs to the present respondents, but the present appellants had the title with respect of tenancy rights — this Court held that a permanent lease which provides terms would result in a tenant-landlord relationship since it is implied in such an agreement that non fulfillment of the prescribed terms would give the right to the landlord to evict the tenant, thus, the respondents do qualify as landlords — held no interference to the orders of the High Court — appeals dismissed — no costs.

2010 SCCL.COM 136(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 8636 of 2002 With Civil Appeal No. 8637 of 2002)
Thakur Kuldeep Singh (D) Thr. L.R. and others Appellant(s) versus Union of India and others Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 3/8/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam and Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Sections 4, 18 and 54 — enhancement of compensation of the acquired lands — appellants purchased the property subjected to the acquisition in a public auction — notification under Section 4 issued for acquiring land for public purpose — Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) determined the market value of the acquired land of the claimants @ Rs.550/- per sq. yd. and, awarded solatium @ 30% and an additional amount under Section 23(1-A) of the Act @ 12% p.a. — Reference Court held the compensation awarded by the LAC adequate — Division Bench enhanced the compensation @ Rs.3000/- per sq. yd. with all other statutory benefits to the appellants/claimants — appeal — whether the appellants are entitled to higher compensation than that fixed by the High Court or Union of India is justified in seeking reduction of the market value/compensation for the acquired land — this Court held that merely on the basis of 'circle rate', market value for acquired lands cannot be fixed but, at the same time, the locality and the prevailing circumstances are relevant for determining the real value of the land — evidence of PW-2 showed that the acquired plot was located in the midst of commercial properties and within the developed commercial hub of Karol Bagh having all facilities — held the amount determined by the High Court just, reasonable and acceptable — appeals dismissed — no costs.

2010 SCCL.COM 139(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 2069-2070 of 2010 With Civil Appeal Nos. 2071-2072 of 2010)
Bhagwan Das and others Appellants with Nayantara Gupta and others Appellants versus State of UP and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/26/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran and Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Sections 4, 18 and 54 — rejection of reference application for determination of compensation — appellants lands were acquired under preliminary and final notifications — compensation award made by the Land Acquisition Collector and appellants were served notice after 6 months to receive the compensation from the Collector's office — appellants made an application seeking a reference under Section 18 for determination of compensation — the Collector rejected the application seeking reference, on the ground that it was made beyond a period of six months from the date of the award, prescribed under Section 18(2) — appellants filed writ petition for quashing the said order but dismissed on the ground that the appeal maintainable under Section 54 — review petition filed by the appellants also dismissed — appeal — whether an appeal would lie under Section 54 of the Act against the order of the Collector refusing to make a reference? — No — whether the period of six months under clause (b) of the proviso to section 18 of the Act should be reckoned from the date of knowledge of the award of the Collector or from the date of award itself? — whether the appellants were entitled to relief? — not disputed that the award was not made in the presence of the claimant-land owners — notice on the date of award was issued under Section 12(2) but was not sent by post nor served on the land-owners — held that in the absence of any evidence placed by the Collector to show knowledge on the part of the appellants, the claim of the appellants that they did not had the knowledge of the contents of the award during a period of six months prior to the filing the application for reference to be accepted — impugned orders of the High Court set aside — Collector is directed to make a reference to the civil court under section 18 of the Act — appeals allowed.

2010 SCCL.COM 135(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 2075 of 2010)
Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Appellant versus Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and another Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/26/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.
Subject Index: Time-barred appeal — Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 41 Rule 3A — Limitation Act — Section 5 — application under — for condonation of long delay of 4 years — facts of the case not disputed — appellant filed suit challenging the bill issued by the respondent No. 1 requiring the appellant to pay Rs.22,96,207/- towards water charges — neither written statement was filed nor anyone appeared on behalf of the respondent on the dates of hearing — trial Court pronounced the ex-parte judgement in favour of the appellant — the appellant filed another suit and prayed that respondent No.1 be directed to issue no objection certificate in its favour — in compliance of the decree passed in the second suit, the concerned authority of the Corporation issued no dues certificate to the appellant — after taking action in furtherance of the decree passed in the second suit, the respondents filed an appeal against judgment and decree passed in first suit and also filed an application for condonation of delay under Order 41 Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act — Division Bench allowed the application of the respondent and condoned the delay caused in filing appeal — appeal — whether the Division Bench justified in condoning more than four years' delay in filing of appeal by the respondents — held No — this Court observed that the Law Department of respondent No.1 was very much aware of the proceedings of the first as well as the second suit, but none of the officers personally contacted either of the advocates for the purpose of filing written statement and preparation of the case and none bothered to appear before the trial Court on any of the dates of hearing — held that the High Court committed grave error by condoning more than four years' delay in filing of appeal ignoring the judicially accepted parameters for exercise of discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act — impugned order of the High Court set aside — condonation of delay filed by the respondents dismissed — appeal allowed.

2010 SCCL.COM 132(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 1929 of 2004 With Civil Appeal Nos. 1930/2004, 1931-1932/2004, 1933/2004, 2810-2938/2004, 4298/2009, 4299/2009 and Civil Appeal No. 2056/2010 @ S.L.P. (C) No.6979/2010 @ CC 2279/2009)
State of Uttar Pradesh and others Appellant(s) versus M/s. Vam Organic Chemicals Limited Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/26/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam.
Subject Index: U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 — Section 4-B — specific reliefs to certain manufacturers — respondents/assessees engaged in manufacturing chemical goods and were granted a Recognition Certificate under Section 4-B authorizing to purchase goods on concessional rates — High Power Committee decided that the benefit of Form III-B for purchase of High Speed Diesel (HSD) used in Diesel Generating Sets in the factory should not be given the benefit of concessional rate since such HSD was not directly used in the manufacture of notified goods — all Trade Tax Authorities issued notices for deletion of HSD from the Companies Recognition Certificate — High Court set aside the show cause notices issued by the Department and held it not open to the Department to delete HSD, furnace oil, liquid fuels or gaseous fuels from the Recognition Certificate — appeal — whether the Department was right in issuing show-cause notices calling upon the Companies to show-cause as to why HSD should not be deleted as an item from their respective Recognition Certificates issued under Section 4-B(2) of 1948 Act? — this Court held that under Section 4-B(4)(ii) of 1948 Act, the Assessing Authority is vested with discretionary power to amend a Recognition Certificate granted under sub-section (2) of Section 4-B of 1948 Act either on it's own motion or on the application of the dealer for any sufficient reason — this Court remitted the cases to the Assessing Authority with a direction to treat the show-cause notice(s) issued for the purposes of amending the existing Recognition Certificate(s) and to decide in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the assessees — appeals disposed — no costs.

2010 SCCL.COM 131(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 2057 of 2010 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 8363 of 2009) With Civil Appeal No. 2058 of 2010 arising out of SLP(C) No.8898 of 2009 Civil Appeal No. 2059 of 2010 arising out of SLP(C) No.8905 of 2009 Civil Appeal No. 2060 of 2010 arising out of SLP(C) No.9264 of 2009 Civil Appeal No. 2061 of 2010 arising out of SLP(C) No.9136 of 2009 Civil Appeal No. 2062 of 2010 arising out of SLP(C) No.13041of 2009 Civil Appeal No. 2063 of 2010 arising out of SLP(C) No.9135 of 2009 Civil Appeal No. 2064 of 2010 arising out of SLP(C) No.20622 of 2009 Civil Appeal No. 2065 of 2010 arising out of SLP(C) No.16721 of 2009)
Assistant Commr. of I.T., Vadodara Appellant(s) versus M/s. Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/26/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia and Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu.
Subject Index: Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 43-A — special provisions consequential to changes in rate of exchange of currency — the Assessing Officer disallowed the roll over premium charges paid by the assessee in respect of foreign exchange forward contracts to Citibank on the ground that the said charges were incurred in connection with the purchase of a capital asset hence, not admissible for deduction. However, CIT(A) held the roll over premium charge(s) incurred by the assessee allowable as it was incurred by the assessee to mitigate the risk involved in higher payment because of adverse fluctuation of rate of exchange — Tribunal upheld the order of the assessment and allowed the assessee the benefit of depreciation on the adjusted cost of fixed asset — assessee challenged the capitalization of the roll over charges paid in respect of foreign currency — High Court concluded that the roll over premium charge(s) paid by the asssessee was in the nature of interest or committal charge(s), hence, the said charges were allowable under Section 36(1)(iii) — appeal — this Court held that roll over charges paid/received in respect of liabilities relating to the acquisition of fixed assets should be debited/credited to the asset in respect of which liability was incurred and to be charged to the Profit and Loss Account — impugned judgement of the High Court set aside — appeals filed by the Department allowed — no costs.

2010 SCCL.COM 138(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 1697 of 2005)
Securities & Exchange Board of India Appellant(s) versus Ajay Agarwal Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/25/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.
Subject Index: Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 — Sections 4(3) and 11 — mis-statement of the facts in the prospectus filed by the company with regard to non-disclosure of pledge of 7 lac 50 thousand shares by directors of the company to avail of working capital from Bank of Baroda and also the Directors of the Company gave a non-disposal undertaking to the Bank — after a show cause notice issued to the respondent, the Chairman of the Board by its order restrained the respondent from associating with any corporate body in accessing the securities market and also prohibited from buying, selling or dealing in securities for a period of five years — Appellate Tribunal held that the powers u/sec. 11-B could not be used retrospectively and that the provision of Section 11-B could not be invoked in respect of the alleged misconduct — appeal — whether Section 11-B could be invoked by the Chairman of the SEBI in conjunction with Sections 4(3) and 11 of the Act? — held Yes — Section 11-B was invoked at the show cause stage and not in the midst of any pending proceeding initiated by the Board — this Court held that the provisions of Section 11-B being procedural in nature can be applied retrospectively — impugned order of the appellate Tribunal quashed and that of the Chairman of the Board upheld — appeal allowed — no costs.

2010 SCCL.COM 137(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 2050 of 2010)
Maharashtra University of Health Sciences and others Appellant(s) versus Satchikitsa Prasarak Mandal and others Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/25/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.
Subject Index: Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Act, 1998 — Sections 2(35) and 53 — 5th and 6th respondent appointed as unapproved lecturers on full-time basis in the respondent college affiliated by the appellant-University — representations made by the 5th and 6th respondent to the appellant-University alleging mental and sexual harassment at the work place but their services were terminated by the respondent college — on the report of the Grievance Committee, the appellant-University directed the 1st and 2nd respondent to suspend and freeze the approval granted in respect of the service of 3rd and 4th respondent and also directed to re-instate respondent No. 5 and 6 on service — writ petition filed before the High Court contending that the appellant-University does not have the power to freeze the approval of appointment of permanent teachers like the 3rd and 4th respondents — High Court quashed the orders passed by the University — appeal — this Court held that the Grievance Committee has the jurisdiction to entertain complaint in respect of unapproved teachers and also to undertake the statutory exercise conferred on it under Section 53 of the Act — impugned judgement of the High Court set aside and the matter referred back to dispose the petition afresh — re-instatement order of 5th and 6th respondent maintained — appeal allowed.

2010 SCCL.COM 130(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 2043-2046 of 2010 With Civil Appeal No. 2047 of 2010)
A.P. Public Service Commission Appellant versus Prasada Rao and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/25/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar and Hon'ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma.
Subject Index: Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission — Selection list — candidates selected for the posts were given an option either to retain their existing position and post or to opt for a new post — this Court held that the selected candidates being appointed for the first time be entitled to give fresh option and the candidates who had already exercised their option would not be entitled to give any fresh option — Directions issued.

2010 SCCL.COM 134(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 6240-6243 of 2001 With Civil Appeal Nos. 6244-6248 of 2001 and Civil Appeal No. 495-504 of 2002)
Sagunthala (Dead) through Lrs. Appellant(s) versus Special Tehsildar (L.A.) and others Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/24/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 4 and 18 — determination of compensation — classification and fixation of the market value of the acquired lands — Reference Court treated the disputed lands as potential house sites and fixed the market value at Rs.1,75,000/- per acre — High Court set aside the order of the Reference Court and fixed the market value at Rs. 75,000/- per acre on the ground that plots of lands acquired were agricultural lands — appeal — disputed lands found situated near the factory premises adjoining the main road and also near the residential colonies — as per the evidences on record, this Court observed that the presence of number of buildings on the lands acquired and the said lands being occupied by the buildings are to be treated as house sites — impugned judgement of the High Court set aside and the order of the Reference Court upheld — appeals allowed — no costs.

2010 SCCL.COM 126(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 5031 of 2005)
Indore Municipal Corporation and another Appellants versus Dr. Hemalata and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/24/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam.
Subject Index: Construction of residential-cum-commercial building — the Municipal Corporation granted permission for commercial use by construction and development of the said land as per the building maps — after the completion of the structure, the respondents requested for a service certificate to enable them to apply for service connections — Building Officer issued a show-cause-notice to the respondents for the irregularities/violations in construction — learned Single Judge quashed the show cause notice and held that the two inspection reports by the officers of the Municipal Corporation and Town and Country Planning Department established that there were no violations and the construction was in accordance with the sanctioned plan — appeal — no occasion for the second appellant to assume that the respondent is likely to violate the sanctioned user — Rule 14 provides that no permission shall be required for opening any doors on any side, therefore, the orders of the Municipal Corporation directing the respondents to close all doors on the western side and to construct a compound wall on the western side, is wholly unauthorised, arbitrary and unreasonable — held that when the sanctioning authorities sanctioned construction of a building and the construction is less than the sanctioned area, the question of appellants holding that there was excess construction, does not arise — no interference to the impugned orders of the High Court — appeal dismissed.

2010 SCCL.COM 141(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 235 of 2006)
Kirpal Singh Appellant versus State of U.P. Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/23/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. Sudershan Reddy and Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.M. Panchal.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302 read with Section 34 — punishment of murder — on the date of incident some quarrel took place between the grandsons of A-3 and the deceased as a consequence of which A-1/appellant (son of A-3) fired gunshot at the deceased resulting to his death — trial Court convicted all the accused and sentenced them for life imprisonment for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 — High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the A-1/appellant — appeal — the fact that the deceased died homicidal death stood approved by the testimony of PW-7–Doctor — testimony of PW-1 in complete corroboration from the contents of FIR and also from the testimony of PW-2 — no major discrepancy brought to the notice of the court by the appellant to make the testimony of the eye-witnesses unreliable — this Court held no interference to the conviction/sentence orders of the trial Court as affirmed by the High Court — appeal dismissed.

2010 SCCL.COM 140(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 2384 of 2007)
Punjab State Electricity Board and another Appellants versus Narata Singh and another Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/23/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.M. Panchal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan.
Subject Index: Punjab Civil Services Rules — Rule 3.17(ii) — Pensionary benefits — respondent No.1 retired from the services of the appellant No.1 on attaining the age of superannuation — as pension benefits not given to the respondent No.1, he instituted writ petition seeking inclusion of work charged service for the purpose of determining qualifying service — Division Bench directed the Board to consider the case of the respondent No. 1 for the grant of pensionary benefits — appellant Board rejected the claim of the respondent No.1 on the ground that he had rendered service in the work charged capacity outside the Board, and that the said service was a non-pensionable service so far as the State Government was concerned — Division Bench concluded the Rule which excluded the counting of work charged service of an employee whose services were regularized subsequently was bad in law and directed the Board to count the said period for determining qualifying service for the purpose of pension — appeal — whether the work charged service rendered by the respondent No. 1 under the Government of Punjab prior to securing employment with the Board would qualify for grant of pension under the Punjab Civil Services Rules — the Board, on its own free volition, had issued letter adopting the policy of the State Government — the policy decision mentioned in memo was rescinded by the Board in the year 2004. However, the Resolution of the year 2004 does not indicate that it is retrospective in nature. Therefore, on the basis of the Resolution of the year 2004, the respondent No.1 cannot be denied the benefit of counting of previous service rendered by him as work charged employee under the Government of Punjab for the purpose of determining qualifying service under the Board for grant of pension — held no interference to the impugned judgement of the High Court — appeal dismissed — no cost.

2010 SCCL.COM 129(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 527 of 2002 With Criminal Appeal No. 531 of 2002)
Sahdeo @ Sahdeo Singh Appellant with Liladhar Appellant versus State of U.P. and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/23/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.M. Panchal and Hon'ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan.
Subject Index: Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 — Criminal contempt — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 364 — FIR lodged for the illegal detention of Tej Veer Singh/detenue without disclosing where he has being taken to — Habeas Corpus petition was filed before the High Court — as the whereabouts of detenue could not be known, the High Court disposed of the Habeas Corpus by transferring the investigation to the CBI and in the contempt case, the High Court concluded that taking the said detenue into custody, was in violation of the directions issued by this Court and held all the three alleged contemnors guilty, thus, awarded sentence to them, and direction was issued to the State to terminate their services after holding disciplinary proceedings — appeal — whether the contempt proceedings had been concluded in conformity with the Rules, 1952 — No — contempt proceedings initiated by the High Court suo motu — the notice did not mention as what was the allegation/accusation against either of the contemnor — neither the report of the District Judge nor any evidence collected by him during that inquiry, nor any other document relevant to the case was annexed with the said notice — this Court held that the contempt proceedings been concluded without ensuring the compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Rules 1952, thus, set aside — appeal allowed.

2010 SCCL.COM 124(Case No: Criminal Appeal Nos. 297-298 of 2002)
State of U.P. Appellant versus Guru Charan and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/23/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. Sudershan Reddy and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 302, 307 read with Section 34 — murder and attempt to murder with common intention — on the basis of the entire evidence, the trial Court convicted and sentenced A-1 and A-2 to death sentence and imprisonment for life to A-3 for brutally murdering 2 persons by firing upon them from their respective weapons — High Court while reversed the orders of the trial Court, acquitted all the convicts of the charges — appeal — High Court doubted the presence of PW-1 of the crime scene and also found that the evidences of PW-1 and PW-2 about injuries on bus driver, was contrary to the medical evidence — test report showed that the cartridges were not fired from the licensed gun of A-1 as stated by the PW-1 — High Court concluded that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the respondents — held the view taken by the High Court as both plausible and possible — appeals dismissed.

2010 SCCL.COM 122(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 1930 of 2010)
Sadashiv Shyama Sawant [D] through L.Rs., and others Appellants versus Anita Anant Sawant Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/22/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha.
Subject Index: Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 6 — suit by person dispossessed of immovable property — plaintiff/respondent filed the suit against the appellants for recovery of possession of the suit property of which her tenant was forcibly dispossessed — trial Court directed the contesting defendants/appellants to handover the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff — High Court affirmed the orders of the trial Court and dismissed the revision application of the appellants — appeal — where a tenant in exclusive possession is dispossessed forcibly by a person other than landlord, can landlord maintain suit under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 against such person for immediate possession — Yes — this Court held that a landlord by letting out the property to a tenant does not lose possession as he continues to retain the legal possession although actual possession, user and control of that property is with the tenant, thus, the dispossession of tenant by a third party is dispossession of the landlord. Further held that there is nothing in Section 6 of the Act to bar a landlord from suing a trespasser in possession even when, at the date of dispossession, the property is in actual occupation of a tenant entitled to possession and that the non-impleadment of the tenant does not fatal to the maintainability of the suit — appeal dismissed — no cost.

2010 SCCL.COM 127(Case No: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 104 of 2009)
M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and others Petitioners versus M/s Super Highway Services and another Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/19/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph.
Subject Index: Dealership Agreement — for the retail sale or supply of petrol, diesel, motor oils, grease and such other products — as a sample of High Speed Diesel (HSD) failed the Marker Test, the sales and supplies of all the products from its outlet were suspended by the petitioner Corporation to the Respondent No.1 — despite having been given notice, no one appeared on behalf of the said respondent when the comparison test was conducted in Barauni — respondent No. 1 filed writ petition to quash the entire proceedings arising out of the Marker Test — petitioner after giving a show cause notice, terminated the Dealership Agreement of the Respondent No. 1 — learned Single Judge allowed the petition of the respondent and held that since the retesting had been done without proper notice to the Respondent No.1, as per the Marketing Discipline Guidelines, thus, the order of termination of the Dealership Agreement could not, be sustained — appeal — whether the dealership of the Respondent No.1 had been validly terminated in accordance with Clause 58 of the Dealership Agreement executed between the parties — No — except for the endorsement on the hand-written notice, there is nothing else on record to suggest that notice had been sent to the Respondent No.1 and that the same had been refused, thus, the termination of the dealership agreement of the respondent was arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice — appeal dismissed — no costs.

2010 SCCL.COM 133(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 6551 of 2002)
P.K. Singh Appellant versus M/s. S.N. Kanungo and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/18/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.M. Panchal and Hon'ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan.
Subject Index: Contempt of Court — Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order XXI Rule 2 — payment of amount to a decree holder out of Court — respondent entered into a contract with the Andaman and Nicobar Administration for execution of the work of extension of runway at Port Blair Airport — dispute arose between the parties regarding the payments of bills — Arbitrator directed the Andaman and Nicobar Administration to pay to the respondent Rs.2,81,83,305/- with 12% interest per annum from the date of withholding the amount till the date of payment — High Court affirmed the Arbitral award — the appellant addressed letters to the respondent to adjust the decree by requesting to accept the principal amount and waive the interest awarded thereon — respondent filed contempt application — Division Bench found the respondent guilty of contempt of court and while accepting the unconditional apology of the appellant, imposed cost of Rs.200 GSM upon him — appeal — records indicated that within the framework of law in terms of Order XXI Rule 2 of CPC, the appellant had made an attempt to persuade the respondent to forego claim relating to interest — the tenor of letters not indicated of any willful disobedience on the part of the appellant in not complying with the judgment of the High Court — this Court held that after accepting the unconditional apology, the High Court should not have imposed cost on the appellant — impugned judgement of the High Court set aside — appeal allowed.

2010 SCCL.COM 125(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 946 of 2002)
Abdul Mannan Appellant(s) versus State of Assam Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/18/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari and Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 304-Part II read with Section 34 — culpable homicide not amounting to murder with common intention — FIR registered against the accused persons for attacking and assaulting 3 persons due to which 1 injured person succumbed to injuries after 14 days — trial Court acquitted all the 6 accused persons — High Court set aside the acquittal order of the trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused to imprisonment of 4 years with fine under Section 304-Part II — appeal — as per the medical report, the death was a result of head injury sustained by the deceased and that all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature caused by blunt force impact, homicidal in nature — held the statements of all eye witnesses including the injured eye witnesses are wholly consistent and fully corroborated with the medical evidence — impugned judgement of the High Court in setting aside the acquittal order of the trial Court justified — appeal dismissed.

2010 SCCL.COM 118(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 1429-1430 of 2010)
Angad Das Appellant versus Union of India and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/18/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari and Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Patnaik.
Subject Index: CRPF Rules, 1955 — modification in punishment — appellant posted as a Head Constable was served a show cause notice on the ground that the date of birth as given by him at the time of joining the service was found false — enquiry was conducted and the appellant was compulsorily retired from the service by way of punishment — appellant sent a polite letter of request to the DIG praying for his re-employment which was treated as an appeal by the DIG Police and in exercise of his power under Rule 28 the punishment of "compulsory retirement" from service has been enhanced to "removal from service" — appeal — this Court held that a mere letter for re-employment could not have been treated as an appeal under Rule 28 of the CRPF Rules, 1955, thus, the order of the DIG totally unjustified and legally untenable — impugned orders of the DIG set aside and that of the Commandant for 'compulsorily retirement' restored — appellant was directed to be paid all the pensionary benefits with interest @9% p.a. and cost of Rs. 50,000/- — appeal allowed.

2010 SCCL.COM 123(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 6249-6250 of 2001 With W.P. (Crl.) 24 of 2008 SLP (Crl.) No. 4096 of 2007 And W.P. (C) No. 573 of 2006)
State of West Bengal and others Appellants versus The Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/17/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Chief Justice, Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran, Mr. Justice D.K. Jain, Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam and Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.M. Panchal.
Subject Index: Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — judicial review — a FIR registered against some miscreants for the commission of various offences under IPC, 1860, Section 25/27 of Arms Act and Section 9(B) of the Explosives Act, 1884 — as no serious attempt had been made to get the victims identified and the police had not been able to come to a definite conclusion whether missing persons were dead or alive, a writ petition was filed before the High Court to handover the case to the CBI — the High Court allowed the said petition — whether the High Court, can direct the Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate a cognizable offence, which is alleged to have taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of a State, without the consent of the State Government — Yes — held that this Court and the High Courts have not only the power and jurisdiction but also an obligation to protect the fundamental rights, guaranteed by Part III and under Article 21 of the Constitution in particular, zealously and vigilantly, thus, the direction by the High Court to the CBI to investigate a cognizable offence without the consent of the State will neither impinge upon the federal structure of the Constitution nor violate the doctrine of separation of power and shall be valid in law.

2010 SCCL.COM 121(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 5611 of 2010)
Economic Transport Organization, Delhi Appellant versus M/s. Charan Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. and another Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/17/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Chief Justice, Mr. Justice R. V. Raveendran, Mr. Justice D.K. Jain, Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam and Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.M. Panchal.
Subject Index: Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(g) — deficiency in service/negligence — Careers Act, 1865 — Section 9 — the first respondent entrusted a consignment of hosiery cotton yarn to the appellant for transportation and delivery to a consignee at Calcutta — said consignment was insured by the second respondent covering transit risks — consignment completely damaged as the goods vehicle met with an accident — on the basis of a surveyor's certificate the second respondent settled the claim of the first respondent and on receiving the payment, the first respondent executed a Letter of Subrogation-cum-Special Power of Attorney in favour of the second respondent — respondents 1 & 2 filed complaint against the appellant for settlement of compensation claim — District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the appellant to pay Rs. 4,47,436/- with interest @12% p.a. to the insurer, on the basis of subrogation — the National Commission affirmed the orders of the lower Foras — appeal — where the letter of subrogation executed by an assured in favour of the insurer whether the document ceases to be a subrogation and becomes an assignment? — whether the insurer as subrogee, can lodge a complaint under the Act, either in the name of the assured, or in the joint names of the insurer and assured as co-complainants? — Yes — whether the insurer as the assignee can file a complaint either in its own name, or in the name of the assured, or by joining the assured as a co-complainant — whether relief could be granted in a complaint against the carrier/service provider, in the absence of any proof of negligence? — this Court held that whether the document executed by the assured in favour of the insurer is a subrogation simpliciter, or a subrogation-cum-assignment, it may not be relevant for deciding the maintainability of a complaint under the Act but, the insurer cannot in its own name maintain a complaint before a consumer forum — as per the provisions of Section 9 of the Act 1865, where the consignor establishes loss or damage or non-delivery of goods, it is deemed that negligence on the part of the carrier is established — held no interference to the impugned orders of the National Forum — appeal dismissed.

2010 SCCL.COM 115(Case No: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6286 of 2009)
R. Ravindra Reddy and others Petitioners versus H. Ramaiah Reddy and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/17/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph.
Subject Index: Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 — Section 132 — bar of jurisdiction — petitioners being co-parcenors filed petition seeking declaration, partition and permanent injunction in respect of scheduled property — trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit as barred by limitation and also not maintainable in view of the bar of Section 132(2) of the Act, 1961 — High Court also dismissed the appeal of the petitioners — appeal — petitioners father admitted the claim of the Respondents on having acquired occupancy rights before the Tribunal — material on record proved that the father of the Petitioners was quite aware of the orders of the Land Tribunal conferring occupancy rights in favour of the respondent and did not questioned to the correctness of the order of the Tribunal, thus, cause of action not arose only in 2004-05 when the Respondent Nos.2 to 5 purportedly attempted to disturb the possession of the Petitioners — this Court held that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in matters to be decided by the Tribunal, and to question a decision of the Tribunal stands ousted by Section 132 of the 1961 Act — no interference to the impugned orders of the High Court — petition dismissed — no costs.

2010 SCCL.COM 113(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 933-935 of 2004 With Civil Appeal Nos. 937-939 of 2004)
B. Manmad Reddy and others Appellants versus Chandra Prakash Reddy and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/17/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju and Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur.
Subject Index: Andhra Pradesh Educational Service Rules — Tribunal and the High Court observed the Note 6 to Rule 3 as ultra vires of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and held them as unconstitutional as the same classified officers eligible for appointment against class II category 1 posts depending upon whether they were direct recruits or promotees — direct recruits filed appeal against the orders of the Tribunal and the High Court — whether persons drawn from different sources and integrated into one class/cadre/category can be classified into separate categories for purposes of promotion on the basis of the source from which they were drawn — no — this Court held that the classification based on the birth mark that stood obliterated after integration of officers coming from different source into a common cadre/category would be wholly unjustified and discriminatory — appeals dismissed — no cost.

2010 SCCL.COM 112(Case No: Arbitration Petition No. 21 of 2009)
Dolphin Drilling Ltd. Petitioner versus Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/17/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam.
Subject Index: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11(6) — application under — for appointment of arbitrator — applicant entered into agreement with the respondent to carry out drilling operations in the offshore waters as allocated by the respondent — non-payment/part-payment of the invoices by the respondent — appellant addressed a notice to the respondent to invoke arbitration clause to which the respondent not responded — hence this petition — held that arbitration clause 28 of the agreement cannot be said to be a one time measure and it cannot be held that once the arbitration clause is invoked the remedy of arbitration is no longer available in regard to other disputes that might arise in future — this Court appointed the former judge of this Court as arbitrator on behalf of the respondent to decide the matter — petition disposed — no cost.

2010 SCCL.COM 110(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 4194 of 2003 With Civil Appeal No. 4483 of 2003)
Chairman, Magadh Gramin Bank and another Appellants versus Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/17/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju and Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur.
Subject Index: Regional Rural Banks Act — for granting computer increment to the employees of the RRBs — the appellant-bank issued a circular giving to its employees the benefit of "computer increment" as per 6th and 7th Bipartite Settlements and Officers Wage Revision — said circular was later recalled and the benefit granted to the employees of the appellant-bank withdrawn — the employees-association challenged the validity of the withdrawal order on several grounds — learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by the association and directed the appellant-Bank to pay to the employees the benefits admissible to them in accordance with law as per the decision of the Government of India — appeal — legality of the Government's decision not questioned before the High Court — documents placed on record showed that the Government of India declined the grant of computer increment to the employees/officers of the RRB as not favoured by the banks — impugned orders of the High Court set aside — this Court left the respondent-association at liberty to challenge the validity of the Government's decision at appropriate proceedings — appeals partly allowed.

2010 SCCL.COM 109(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 565 of 2005)
Sheshambal (dead) through L.Rs. Appellants versus M/s. Chelur Corporation Chelur Building and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/17/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju and Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur.
Subject Index: Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control Act), 1965 — Section 11(3) — eviction petition — premises owner filed petition seeking eviction of the tenant-occupant on the ground of requirement for their bonafide personal occupation — Rent Controller dismissed the petition and concluded that the owners had failed to establish their bona fide requirement of premises — High Court affirmed the orders of the Rent Controller but enhanced the rent of the premises to Rs. 10,000/- and further gave liberty to the parties to approach the competent Court for fixation of fair rent for the demised premises — appeal — during the pendency of the petition the original owners expired — whether the proceedings instituted by the deceased-owners of the demised property could be continued by the legal heirs left behind by them — the eviction petition not argued that the requirement of the premises was not only the requirement of the petitioner-owners of the premises but also the requirement of any other member of their family whether dependant upon them or otherwise — held that allowing the legal heirs to continue proceedings would amount to permitting them to introduce a case which is totally different from the one set up before the Rent Controller the Appellate Authority or even the High Court, thus, on the death of the petitioners in the original eviction petition their right to seek eviction on the ground of personal requirement for the demised premises became extinct — directed the respondents to pay Rs. 15,000/- p.m. towards rent with granted liberty to the parties for seeking determination of the fair rent for the premises before the competent Court in accordance with law — appeal disposed.

2010 SCCL.COM 114(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 1208 of 2010 With Civil Appeal Nos. 1209-1210 of 2010 @ SLP (C) Nos. 11776, 11777 of 2006, Civil Appeal Nos. 1212-1215 of 2010 @ SLP(C) Nos. 11779, 11780, 11783, 9252 of 2006, Civil Appeal No. 1217 of 2010 @ SLP(C) No. 13692 of 2006, Civil Appeal No. 1219 of 2010 @ SLP(C) No. 13694 of 2006, Civil Appeal Nos. 1221-1235 of 2010 @ SLP(C) Nos. 13696, 13697, 13698, 13699, 13700, 13701, 13702, 13705, 13703, 13706, 13707, 11341, 14430, 14431, 14432 of 2006, Civil Appeal Nos. 1237-1247 of 2010 @ SLP(C) Nos. 14435, 14436, 14438, 14439, 14441, 14442, 14443, 14444, 14445, 14447, 14448 of 2006, Civil Appeal Nos. 1249-1253 of 2010 @ SLP(C) Nos. 14450, 14451, 14918, 14919, 14921 of 2006, Civil Appeal Nos. 1255-1259 of 2010 @ SLP(C) Nos. 14923, 14924, 14301, 16041, 16042 of 2006, Civil Appeal Nos. 1261-1265 of 2010 @ SLP(C) Nos. 16044, 16046, 16047, 16048, 16051 of 2006, Civil Appeal Nos. 1267-1271 of 2010 @ SLP(C) Nos. 15544, 15545, 16549, 16550, 16552 of 2006, Civil Appeal Nos. 1274-1275 of 2010 @ SLP(C) Nos. 17633, 17636 of 2006, Civil Appeal No. 1277 of 2010 @ SLP(C) No. 18524 of 2006, Civil Appeal Nos. 1279-1282 of 2010 @ SLP(C) Nos. 19469, 19470, 21075, 21072 of 2006.)
Union of India and another Appellants versus Dinesh Kumar Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/16/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar.
Subject Index: Border Security Force Act, 1968 and Rules 1969 — Section 117(2) and Rule 149 — the High Court directed remand in all the matters to the appellate authority under Section 117 (2) for rewriting the order, giving reasons in support of the conclusions reached by the same — appellants/Union of India challenged the judgment of the High Court — whether the Summary Security Force Court (SSFC) and the appellate authority is required to give reasons while considering the correctness, legality or propriety of the order passed? — no — this Court held that though Rule 99 was amended requiring authority of General Security Force Court or Petty Security Force Court to give reasons in support of their findings, no such amendment was made to Rule 149 which is applicable in case of SSFC, thus, no reasons be required to be given by the SSFC under Rule 149 or by the appellate authority under Section 117(2) of the Act — since the other contentions on merits of the Writ Petitions were not considered, this Court remanded the matter back to the Delhi High Court for re-consideration on merits — appeals disposed.

2010 SCCL.COM 111(Case No: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 21954 of 2009)
Gyan Mandir Society and another Petitioners versus Ashok Kumar and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/16/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.M. Panchal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur.
Subject Index: Absorption of students and teachers — facts of the case not disputed — petitioner society did not challenged the orders of the High Court directing the society to adjust and absorb the students and teachers from the Tis January Lane school but argued that the direction No.3 issued by the learned Single Judge was totally beyond the scope of writ petition inasmuch as there was neither any prayer in the petition regarding grant of free transportation to the students from Tis January Lane nor was there any legal justification for the issue of any such direction — this Court observed that the direction regarding free transportation to students from Tis January Lane to the Indian school does not have any contractual or other legal basis. Neither the transportation to the students was the matter in issue before the High Court or in the writ petition filed by the teachers nor the students were parties to the proceedings — impugned orders of the High Court modified to the extent that the direction No. 3 issued by the High Court deleted — petition disposed — no costs.

2010 SCCL.COM 108(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 1742-1743 of 2010)
State of West Bengal and another Appellant(s) versus Kamala Prasad and others Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/16/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran and Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan.
Subject Index: Mandatory injunction — for entitlement of benefits — Civil Court decreed the suit in favour of the writ petitioners/respondents/employees declaring them as class III employees, entitled to all benefits and privileges attached to the post of Laboratory Assistants and their demotion to class IV posts illegal and directed the defendants to pay all dues attached to the posts — appellants challenged the executability of the decree passed on the ground that the executing court did not have the jurisdiction to execute the decree — the said suit was dismissed as not maintainable — learned Single Judge directed the State Government and its authorities to grant relief to the respondents by treating them as Class-III employees as declared by the Civil Court and pay them all consequential benefits with retrospective effect — Division Bench affirmed the orders of the Single Judge — appeal — High Court rightly held that while directing consideration of the claims of the respondents herein, as Class-III employees, the court not executed the Civil Court's decree but only recognized that the Civil Court has declared their status as Class-III employees, which is binding on the appellants — this Court found no error to the direction given by the High Court — appeals dismissed.

2010 SCCL.COM 107(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 8419 of 2003)
M/s. Dynamic Orthopedics Pvt. Ltd. Appellant(s) versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Cochin, Kerala Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/16/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam.
Subject Index: Companies Act, 1956 — Income Tax Act, 1961 and Rules, 1962 — Section 115J and Rule 5 — depreciation — assessee filed Income Tax Return after depreciation from Profit & Loss Account as per the rates specified in Rule 5 — the Assessing Officer re-computed the book profit after allowing depreciation as per Schedule XIV to the Companies Act — the C.I.T. (A) held that Section 350 of 1956 Act not applicable to the assessee and, the Income Tax Officer had erred in providing depreciation at the rates specified under Schedule XIV to 1956 Act — Tribunal as well as the High Court affirmed the orders of the C.I.T. — appeal — whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal justified in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) directing the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of depreciation as per the Income Tax Rules, 1962, for the purposes of computing the book profit under Section 115J of the Income Tax Act, 1961? — this Court observed that Section 115J imposes tax on a deemed income and only Parts II and III of Schedule VI to 1956 Act have been incorporated legislatively into Section 115J of the Act — held that once a Company falls within the ambit of it being a MAT Company, Section 115J of the Act applies and, such an assessee-Company was required to prepare its profit and loss account only in terms of Parts II and III of Schedule VI to 1956 Act — Registry is directed to place the appeal before the learned Chief Justice for appropriate directions.

2010 SCCL.COM 106(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 1750-1751 of 2010)
Santuram Yadav and another Appellant(s) versus Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Bemetara and another Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/16/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha.
Subject Index: Termination of services — the appellants, were selected on the temporary post of Nakedar by a duly constituted Selection Committee on the pay-scale determined by the Collector — threat of removal — appellants approached the Labour Court — respondent No. 1 entered in compromise with the appellants and agreed to reinstate the appellants and also to grant seniority and other benefits from the date of their initial appointment — twice the respondents were ordered by the Labour Court and the High Court for reinstatement of the appellants but the appellants were dismissed on the ground of failure to establish that they worked for more than 240 days continuously in one calendar year — High Court dismissed the writ petition of the appellants — appeal — this Court observed that the compromise deed and other information/materials not projected before the Labour Court and the High Court, thus, remitted the matter back to the Labour Court to consider the claim of the workmen afresh in accordance with law, after affording opportunity to both parties — appeals allowed — no costs.

2010 SCCL.COM 146(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 436 of 2009)
Ajmer Singh Appellant versus State of Haryana Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/15/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam and Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu.
Subject Index: Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 20 — conviction and sentence under — Section 50 — notice under in compliance with — 500 gms. of charas wrapped in wax paper recovered from the possession of the appellant without licence — trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant to RI of 10 years with Rs. 1 lac as fine — High Court affirmed the orders of the trial Court and concluded that the delay of 15 days in sending the sample for chemical examination properly explained by the prosecution — appeal — held no interference to the impugned orders of the High Court — appeal dismissed.

2010 SCCL.COM 105(Case No: Criminal Appeal Nos. 320-336 of 2010 With Criminal Appeal No. 337 of 2010)
National Small Industries Corp. Ltd. Appellant(s) versus Harmeet Singh Paintal and another Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/15/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam and Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu.
Subject Index: Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138 read with Section 141 — penalty for dishonour of cheque due to insufficiency of funds and 'offences by companies' — appellant filed criminal complaints against the respondent-company alleging that the cheques issued by the accused persons were dishonoured on presentation — trial Court issued summons to the respondent. However the High Court quashed the summoning order passed by the trial Court against the respondent No. 1 — appeal — this Court held that the vicarious liability arises from being in-charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time when the offence was committed and not on the basis of merely holding a designation or office in a company — evidence on record from the Sixth Annual Report for the year 1996-97 of the accused company showed that the respondent No. 1 was no more a Director of the company when the cheques alleged in the complaint were signed, thus no liability could be fastened on respondent No. 1 — impugned orders of the High Court upheld — appeals dismissed.