Judgments : 20 Important Supreme Court of India Judgments / Orders March 2018
1. Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency P. Ltd. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation [28-03-2018]
All civil or criminal cases, where stay of proceedings in a pending trial is operating, stay will automatically lapse after six months from today unless extended by a speaking order – trial courts may, on expiry of above period, resume the proceedings without waiting for any other intimation unless express order extending stay is produced.
All civil or criminal cases, where stay of proceedings in a pending trial is operating, stay will automatically lapse after six months from today unless extended by a speaking order – trial courts may, on expiry of above period, resume the proceedings without waiting for any other intimation unless express order extending stay is produced.
Case Number : Crl.A. No. 1375-1376 / 2013
Petitioner’s Advocate : Tatini Basu
Respondent’s Advocate : Mukesh Kumar Maroria
Judgment By : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel
Petitioner’s Advocate : Tatini Basu
Respondent’s Advocate : Mukesh Kumar Maroria
Judgment By : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel
2. State of Himachal Pradesh Chief Secretary Vs. Ravinder Kumar Sankhayan (Dead) [28-03-2018]
Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation (HPTDC) – Since the State has also come up in appeal against the decision of the High Court, it must take initiative to find out a suitable solution in accordance with law, expeditiously and within a reasonable time, failing which it may be open to the Municipal Corporation to resort to recovery proceedings against HPTDC and including eviction of HPTDC from the suit premises consequent to termination of the contract inter partes.
Citations : JT 2018 (3) SC 592
Case Number : C.A. No. 3392-3392 / 2006
Petitioner’s Advocate : Varinder Kumar Sharma
Bench : Hon’ble The Chief Justice, Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar
Judgment By : Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar
Case Number : C.A. No. 3392-3392 / 2006
Petitioner’s Advocate : Varinder Kumar Sharma
Bench : Hon’ble The Chief Justice, Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar
Judgment By : Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar
3. Mohinder Singh (d) Thr Lrs. Vs. Paramjit Singh [28-03-2018]
Whether Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has no impact in view of the provisions contained in Punjab Limitation (Custom) Act, 1920 ?
Whether Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has no impact in view of the provisions contained in Punjab Limitation (Custom) Act, 1920 ?
Case Number : C.A. No. 10222-10222 / 2017
Petitioner’s Advocate : Rakesh Dahiya
Respondent’s Advocate : Devvrat
Bench : Hon’ble The Chief Justice, Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.m. Khanwilkar
Judgment By : Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.m. Khanwilkar
Petitioner’s Advocate : Rakesh Dahiya
Respondent’s Advocate : Devvrat
Bench : Hon’ble The Chief Justice, Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.m. Khanwilkar
Judgment By : Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.m. Khanwilkar
4. Shivawwa Vs. Branch Manager National India Insurance Co. Ltd. [28-03-2018]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – the conclusion reached by the Tribunal is a possible view, which could not have been disturbed by the High Court in the appeal filed by the insurer, much less in such a casual manner, as has been done by the High Court.
Citations : JT 2018 (3) SC 584
Case Number : C.A. No. 2247-2247 / 2018
Petitioner’s Advocate : Supreeta Sharanagouda
Bench : Hon’ble The Chief Justice, Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar
Judgment By : Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar
Case Number : C.A. No. 2247-2247 / 2018
Petitioner’s Advocate : Supreeta Sharanagouda
Bench : Hon’ble The Chief Justice, Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar
Judgment By : Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar
5. Honble High Court of Judicature At Allahabad Registrar General Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [28-03-2018]
Dispute mainly relates to the principle to be applied for determining seniority for direct recruits and promotees of the years 2007 and 2009 in the context of Rules 22 and 26 of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975.
Dispute mainly relates to the principle to be applied for determining seniority for direct recruits and promotees of the years 2007 and 2009 in the context of Rules 22 and 26 of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975.
Case Number : C.A. No. 3356-3356 / 2018
Petitioner’s Advocate : Preetika Dwivedi
Bench : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman
Judgment By : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel
Petitioner’s Advocate : Preetika Dwivedi
Bench : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman
Judgment By : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel
6. Dr. Pankaj Kumudchandra Phadnis Vs. Union of India Minsitry of Law and Justice [28-03-2018]
Mahatma Gandhi’s Assassination Case – PIL filed by a Ph.D Researcher – Fourth Bullet Theory – unseen hand involved in the murder – perusal of original photograph at the museum leads to no such inference – petitioner’s attempt to reopen this controversy as an exercise in futility.
Citations : JT 2018 (3) SC 601
Case Number : SLP (c) No. 8293 / 2018
Petitioner’s Advocate : Petitioner-in-person
Judgment By : Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao
Case Number : SLP (c) No. 8293 / 2018
Petitioner’s Advocate : Petitioner-in-person
Judgment By : Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao
7. P. Meenakshisundaram Vs. P. Vijayakumar [28-03-2018]
Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 16(c) – “readiness and willingness” – the plaintiff must plead and prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract all through i.e., right from the date of the contract till the date of hearing of the suit i.e., right from the date of the contract till the date of hearing of the suit.
Case Number : C.A. No. 3353-3354 / 2018
Petitioner’s Advocate : Vijay Kumar
Respondent’s Advocate : S. Rajappa
Bench : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit
Judgment By : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit
Petitioner’s Advocate : Vijay Kumar
Respondent’s Advocate : S. Rajappa
Bench : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit
Judgment By : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit
8. State of Tamil Nadu Vs. S. Martin [28-03-2018]
Penal Code, 1860 – Ss. 294 (A), 420 & 120 (b) – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – S. 482 – Quashing of FIR before completion of investigation – illegally printed lottery tickets – The investigation in any case ought not to have been set at naught but it ought to have been permitted to be taken to its logical conclusion.
Citations : JT 2018 (3) SC 605
Case Number : Crl.A. No. 423-424 / 2018
Petitioner’s Advocate : M. Yogesh Kanna
Respondent’s Advocate : E. C. Agrawala
Bench : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit
Judgment By : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit
Case Number : Crl.A. No. 423-424 / 2018
Petitioner’s Advocate : M. Yogesh Kanna
Respondent’s Advocate : E. C. Agrawala
Bench : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit
Judgment By : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit
9. Krishnakant Tamrakar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [28-03-2018]
Whether there is need for any changes in the judicial structure by creating appropriate fora to decongest the Constitutional Courts so as to realistically achieve the constitutional goal of speedy justice.
Whether there is need for any changes in the judicial structure by creating appropriate fora to decongest the Constitutional Courts so as to realistically achieve the constitutional goal of speedy justice.
Case Number : Crl.A. No. 470-470 / 2018
Petitioner’s Advocate : Kaushal Yadav
Bench : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman
Judgment By : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel
Petitioner’s Advocate : Kaushal Yadav
Bench : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman
Judgment By : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel
10. Lakshmamma Vs. Commnr. Bangalore Dev. Auth. [28-03-2018]
:
Case Number : C.A. No. 4088-4088 / 2010
Petitioner’s Advocate : S. N. Bhat
Respondent’s Advocate : Vijay Kumar
Bench : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha
Judgment By : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha
:
Case Number : C.A. No. 4088-4088 / 2010
Petitioner’s Advocate : S. N. Bhat
Respondent’s Advocate : Vijay Kumar
Bench : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha
Judgment By : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha
11. Harita Sunil Parab Vs. State of Nct of Delhi [28-03-2018]
Convenience for the purposes of transfer means the convenience of the prosecution, other accused, the witnesses and the larger interest of the society.
Convenience for the purposes of transfer means the convenience of the prosecution, other accused, the witnesses and the larger interest of the society.
Case Number : T.P. (Crl.) No. 254 – 255 / 2017
Petitioner’s Advocate : Petitioner-in-person
Bench : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha
Judgment By : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha
Petitioner’s Advocate : Petitioner-in-person
Bench : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha
Judgment By : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha
12. Vinod Vs. Collector and Chairman District Selection Committee Chandrapur [28-03-2018]
Writ Petition was withdrawn only on account of the pendency of the appeal – second writ petition, there is a specific prayer challenging the subsequent order passed in appeal – second writ petition is maintainable.
Case Number : C.A. No. 3352 – 3352 / 2018
Petitioner’s Advocate : Rameshwar Prasad Goyal
Bench : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha
Judgment By : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph
Petitioner’s Advocate : Rameshwar Prasad Goyal
Bench : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha
Judgment By : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph
13. Shakti Vahini Vs. Union of India [27-03-2018]
Honour Killing – When two adults consensually choose each other as life partners, it is a manifestation of their choice which is recognized under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
Case Number : W.P. (C) No. 231-231 / 2010
Petitioner’s Advocate : Prakash Kumar Singh
Respondent’s Advocate : Irshad Ahmad
Bench : Hon’ble The Chief Justice, Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.m. Khanwilkar, Hon’ble Dr. Justice D.y. Chandrachud
Judgment By : Hon’ble The Chief Justice
Petitioner’s Advocate : Prakash Kumar Singh
Respondent’s Advocate : Irshad Ahmad
Bench : Hon’ble The Chief Justice, Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.m. Khanwilkar, Hon’ble Dr. Justice D.y. Chandrachud
Judgment By : Hon’ble The Chief Justice
14. Ganapathi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu [27-03-2018]
Mere statement that being relatives of the deceased they are likely to falsely implicate the accused cannot be a ground to discard the evidence which is otherwise cogent and credible.
Mere statement that being relatives of the deceased they are likely to falsely implicate the accused cannot be a ground to discard the evidence which is otherwise cogent and credible.
Citations : JT 2018 (3) SC 565
Case Number : Crl.A. No. 1312-1312 / 2008
Petitioner’s Advocate : M. Vijaya Bhaskar
Respondent’s Advocate : M. Yogesh Kanna
Bench : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana, Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer
Judgment By : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana
Case Number : Crl.A. No. 1312-1312 / 2008
Petitioner’s Advocate : M. Vijaya Bhaskar
Respondent’s Advocate : M. Yogesh Kanna
Bench : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana, Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer
Judgment By : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana
15. Compaq International Vs. Bajaj Allianz General [27-03-2018]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – S. 14 – Currency of licences to drive motor vehicles – The relevant provision is Section 14(2)(b) in terms whereof the licence in question, whether originally issued or a renewal thereof had to be issued would be effective for a period of 20 years or until the person obtaining such licence attains the age of 50 years, whichever is earlier.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – S. 14 – Currency of licences to drive motor vehicles – The relevant provision is Section 14(2)(b) in terms whereof the licence in question, whether originally issued or a renewal thereof had to be issued would be effective for a period of 20 years or until the person obtaining such licence attains the age of 50 years, whichever is earlier.
Citations : JT 2018 (3) SC 579
Case Number : C.A. No. 2538 – 2539 / 2018
Petitioner’s Advocate : R. C. Kaushik
Bench : Hon’ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul
Judgment By : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul
Case Number : C.A. No. 2538 – 2539 / 2018
Petitioner’s Advocate : R. C. Kaushik
Bench : Hon’ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul
Judgment By : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul
16. Manju Surana Vs. Ratan Singh [27-03-2018]
Whether prior sanction for prosecution qua allegation of corruption in respect of a public servants is required before setting in motion even the investigative process under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ? The matter is referred to a larger Bench.
Case Number : Crl.A. No. 457-457 / 2018
Petitioner’s Advocate : Prashant Bhushan
Judgment By : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul
Petitioner’s Advocate : Prashant Bhushan
Judgment By : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul
17. Mackintosh Burn Vs. Sarkar And Chowdhury Enterprises [27-03-2018]
Companies Act, 2013 – S. 58 – Refusal of registration and appeal against refusal – Right to refuse registration of transfer on sufficient cause is a question of law and whether the cause shown for refusal is sufficient or not in a given case, can be a mixed question of law and fact.
Companies Act, 2013 – S. 58 – Refusal of registration and appeal against refusal – Right to refuse registration of transfer on sufficient cause is a question of law and whether the cause shown for refusal is sufficient or not in a given case, can be a mixed question of law and fact.
Citations: JT 2018 (3) SC 571
Case Number : C.A. No. 3322-3323 / 2018
Petitioner’s Advocate : Satish Kumar
Bench : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha
Judgment By : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph
Case Number : C.A. No. 3322-3323 / 2018
Petitioner’s Advocate : Satish Kumar
Bench : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha
Judgment By : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph
18. Municipal Corporation Vs. Bvg India Limited [27-03-2018]
Under the scope of judicial review, the High Court could not ordinarily interfere with the judgment of the expert consultant on the issues of technical qualifications of a bidder when the consultant takes into consideration various factors including the basis of non-performance of the bidder
Under the scope of judicial review, the High Court could not ordinarily interfere with the judgment of the expert consultant on the issues of technical qualifications of a bidder when the consultant takes into consideration various factors including the basis of non-performance of the bidder
Case Number : C.A. No. 3330 – 3330 / 2018
Petitioner’s Advocate : Mishra Saurabh
Bench : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha
Judgment By : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
Petitioner’s Advocate : Mishra Saurabh
Bench : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha
Judgment By : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
19. Kedar Nath Kohli (Dead) By Lrs. Vs. Sh. Baldev Singh [27-03-2018]
Civil Suit – It is the specific case of the respondent that he had purchased plot no. 27 carved out of 567 square yards of land belonging to one D – Since such D was never the owner of plot no. 27, there was no occasion of transferring the title relating to plot no. 27 in favour of the respondent – Hence, it is amply proved by the appellant that he is the owner of plot no. 27 and that he is entitled to get back the possession of the same from the respondent, who is in unauthorised possession.
Case Number : C.A. No. 3333 – 3333 / 2018
Petitioner’s Advocate : Mohan Pandey
Bench : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha
Judgment By : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph
Petitioner’s Advocate : Mohan Pandey
Bench : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha
Judgment By : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph
20. Anilkumar Jinabhai Patel (D) Thr. Lrs. Vs. Pravinchandra Jinabhai Patel [27-03-2018]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Ss. 31 (5) & 34 (3) – Application for setting aside arbitral award – the limitation period prescribed under Section 34(3) of the Act would commence only from the date of signed copy of the award delivered to the party making the application for setting it aside.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Ss. 31 (5) & 34 (3) – Application for setting aside arbitral award – the limitation period prescribed under Section 34(3) of the Act would commence only from the date of signed copy of the award delivered to the party making the application for setting it aside.
Case Number : C.A. No. 3313 – 3313 / 2018
Petitioner’s Advocate : T. R. B. Sivakumar
Respondent’s Advocate : Aniruddha P. Mayee
Bench : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Hon’ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi
Judgment By : Hon’ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi
Petitioner’s Advocate : T. R. B. Sivakumar
Respondent’s Advocate : Aniruddha P. Mayee
Bench : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Hon’ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi
Judgment By : Hon’ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi
![Tax Law Internship Opportunity at Legum Attorney [Chamber of Ashish Panday], Delhi [Tax Litigation]: Apply by 2nd November](https://www.ourlegalworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Legum-Attorney-Intern.png)
