Supreme Court weekly Update Important Judgements 22-31 July
1. Sanjay Rajak v. The State of Bihar
Evidence Law – Calls on Mobile demanding Ransom – Voice Recognition – Every individual has a distinctive style of speaking which makes identification by those acquainted possible – Even if a person tries to camouflage his voice in one call, given the limitations of human nature there will be a tendency to state certain words or sentences in an inimitable style exposing the identity.
Case Number : Crl.A. No. 1070 of 2017 22-07-2019
Petitioner’s Advocate : Mansoor Ali
Bench : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha
Judgment By : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha
2. Ramesh Das (dead) Thr. Lrs. v. The State of Madhya PHHradesh
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 100 – Substantial Question of Law – No document of title was relied upon by the plaintiff herein to establish his claim – Even the Revenue entry was not individually in the name of the plaintiff but was being claimed based on the entry of his father’s name with that of the temple – No substantial question in the contest of ownership has arisen – If that be the position no issue arises for consideration in the instant appeal as well
Case Number : C.A. No. 5041 of 2009 22-07-2019
Bench : Hon’ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi, Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.S. Bopanna
Judgment By : Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.S. Bopanna
3. Shiv Prakash Mishra v. The State of Uttar Pradesh
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 319 – Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence
Case Number : Crl.A. No. 1105 of 2019 23-07-2019
Petitioner’s Advocate : Reetu Sharma
Respondent’s Advocate : Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad
Bench : Hon’ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi, Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.S. Bopanna
Judgment By : Hon’ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi
4. Shri A.M.C.S. Swamy ADE / DPE / HYD (Central) v. Mehdi Agah Karbalai
The Electricity Act, 2003 – Sections 135, 151 and 153- The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 193 – Cognizance of offences by Courts of Session – Special Court is empowered to take cognizance without there being an order of committal as contemplated under Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – When there is express provision in the Special Act empowering the Special Court to take cognizance of an offence without the accused being committed, it cannot be said that taking cognizance of offence by Special Court is in violation of Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Case Number : Crl.A. No. 1102 of 2019 23-07-2019
Petitioner’s Advocate : Rakesh K. Sharma
Bench : Hon’ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi, Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Subhash Reddy
Judgment By : Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Subhash Reddy
Petitioner’s Advocate : Rakesh K. Sharma
Bench : Hon’ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi, Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Subhash Reddy
Judgment By : Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Subhash Reddy
5. Surinder Pal Soni v. Sohan Lal (d) Thru Lr.
Practice and Procedure – Revisional Jurisdiction – In a Civil Revision arising out of an execution proceeding, the High Court has modified the decree – Such a course was not open in law.
Case Number : C.A. No. 5360 of 2019 23-07-2019
Petitioner’s Advocate : Shree Pal Singh
Bench : Hon’ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Hon’ble Ms. Justice Indira Banerjee
Judgment By : Hon’ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud
Petitioner’s Advocate : Shree Pal Singh
Bench : Hon’ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Hon’ble Ms. Justice Indira Banerjee
Judgment By : Hon’ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud
6. The Officer In Charge, Sub Regional Provident Fund Office v. M/s Godavari Garments Limited
The Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 – Section 2 (f) – The definition of “employee” under Section 2(f) of the EPF Act is an inclusive definition, and is widely worded to include any person engaged either directly or indirectly in connection with the work of an establishment.
Case Number : C.A. No. 5821 of 2019 24-07-2019
Petitioner’s Advocate : Brajesh Kumar
Respondent’s Advocate : Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar
Bench : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon’ble Ms. Justice Indu Malhotra
Judgment By : Hon’ble Ms. Justice Indu Malhotra
7. State Bank of India v. Atindra Nath Bhatacharyya
Hearing – Time and again opportunity of hearing cannot be granted on the pretext of justice.
Case Number : C.A. No. 5842 of 2019 25-07-2019
Petitioner’s Advocate : Sanjay Kapur
Bench : Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta
Judgment By : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta
8. Ranjit Kumar Haldar v. The State of Sikkim
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 106 – Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.
Case Number : Crl.A. No. 427 of 2014 25-07-2019
Petitioner’s Advocate : Rameshwar Prasad Goyal
Bench : Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta
Judgment By : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta
9. Prashanti Medical Services and Research Foundation v. Union of India
The Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 35AC – One of the main objects for which Section 35AC was enacted was to allow the assessees to claim deduction of the amount paid by them to a Charitable Trust for their project.
Case Number : C.A. No. 5849 of 2019 25-07-2019
Petitioner’s Advocate : E.C. Agrawala
Bench : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon’ble Ms. Justice Indu Malhotra
Judgment By : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre
![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)
