Important Supreme Court of India Judgments January 7, 2019
1. Jagdish Chand v. State of Haryana
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 304B and 498A – Admittedly, death in the instant case took place within seven years of the marriage which was solemnised on 19.4.1988 and the incident of death had occurred on 7.12.1994. Though the defence had tried to prove otherwise, namely, that death had occurred beyond seven years of marriage, no concrete evidence in this regard has been forthcoming. Demands for dowry by the accused appellants as well as the husband and illtreatment/cruelty on failure to meet the said demands is evident from the evidence of PW6. From the evidence of PW1, it is clear that the death was on account of burn injuries suffered by the deceased which injuries were caused by use of kerosene. In the light of the aforesaid evidence, this Court has no hesitation in holding that all the three ingredients necessary to draw the presumption of commission of the offence under Section 304 B IPC have been proved and established by the prosecution. Consequently, the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act has to be drawn against the accused and in the absence of any defence evidence to rebut the same, the Court has to hold the accused guilty of the offence under Section 304B IPC. On the basis of the same consideration, the offence under Section 498A must also be held to be proved against the accused persons.
2. Mahadevappa v. State of Karnataka Tr. Pub. Prosecutor
Judicial Remarks – these disparaging remarks/strictures coupled with the directions of how one should behave and pass orders was unnecessary in the facts of this case, and nor they were germane for deciding the lis between the parties. Such remarks/strictures, therefore, should not have been made. They are accordingly expunged and stand deleted from the impugned order.
3. State of Rajasthan v. Gram Vikas Samiti, Shivdaspura
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 100 – Second Appeal – who is the owner of the land and who is in its possession, whether the plaintiff as claimed was able to prove their title over the suit land to the exclusion of the rights of the State and, if so, on what basis and whether his possession if proved, is legal or not, etc. requires elaborate discussion. It should have been adjudicated in the light of legal principle applicable to the case, pleadings and evidence. It is for these reasons, the case needs to be remanded to the High Court for deciding of the Second Appeal afresh on all such questions which do arise in the case but were not decided much less in accordance with law.
4. Birla Institute of Technology v. State of Jharkhand
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 – Whether “Teacher” could be regarded as an “employee” under Section 2(e) of the Act and, if so, whether he/she is entitled to claim gratuity amount from his employer in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
5. Deputy Executive Engineer v. Kuberbhai Kanjibhai
Labour Law – the respondent was held to have worked as daily wager or muster role employee hardly for a few years – no right to claim regularization & continue as daily wager – the dispute was raised by the workman before the Labour Court almost after 15 years of his alleged termination – it would be just, proper and reasonable to award lump sum monetary compensation to the respondent in full and final satisfaction of his claim of reinstatement and other consequential benefits.
![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)
