Supreme Court Weekly Update 16-20 September, 2019 

Supreme Court Weekly Update 16-20 September, 2019

Important Supreme Court Judgement for Judicial Services, and others competitive exam.

1. Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (now GLADA) v. Vidya Chetal

The determination of the dispute concerning the validity of the imposition of a statutory due arising out of a “deficiency in service”, can be undertaken by the consumer fora as per the provisions of the Act

2. Rambhau Ganpati Nagpure v. Ganesh Nathuji Warbe

vidence Act, 1872 – Section 83 – Presumption as to maps or plans made by authority of Government. It is urged that the plaintiffs have not proved the map. On going through the records, the map was prepared on the directions of the S.D.O. No doubt, after the map was prepared, the order of the S.D.O. directing for preparation of the map was set aside, but that will not affect the evidentiary value of the map which depicts the position of the boundaries as per the holdings of the parties. 

3. Vasant Ganpat Padave v. Anant Mahadev Sawant

Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (Maharashtra) – The object of the Amendment Act of 1969 is relevant and applicable in deciding the scope of the right to purchase by a tenant of a landlord who was a widow or suffering from mental or physical disability on Tillers’ day. The successor-in-interest of a widow is obliged to send an intimation to the tenant of cessation of interest of the widow to enable the tenant to exercise his right of purchase.

4. Karuppanna Gounder v. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police

Section 302 – The appellant is alleged to have used the Sammatti (hammer) and he gave a blow at the back of the head or on the neck of the deceased. Both the injuries do not correspond with the injury of the back of the head or neck. These injuries can be related to the attack made by A2­, A3 and A4, who have alleged to have used iron rods. Unfortunately, A3 and A4 have been acquitted and A2 has only been convicted for causing simple injury with a weapon. Furthermore, since only one accused is left, we cannot take recourse to the provisions of Section 34 or Section 149 IPC. 

5. ITC Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata IV

Whether in the absence of any challenge to the order of assessment in appeal, any refund application against the assessed duty can be entertained ? 

6. Pradeep Singh Dehal v. State of Himachal Pradesh

The process of conducting separate interviews under general category and OBC category is wholly illegal.