Current's
Case Pointer
SUPREME COURT WEEKLY DECISIONS


Issue No : 14 of 2020

Issue Date : 04/04/2020


TABLE OF CASES


Sr. No

Appellant vs. Respondents

Court

Case Date

1.

Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd vs. Rohit Prajapati & Ors
Constitution of India Art. 142, Art. 226
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 Sec. 3
Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 Rule 5

SC

01/04/2020

2.

Bhagwat Sharan (Dead thr Lrs ) vs. Purushottam & Ors
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Or. 41R. 27

SC

03/04/2020

3.

Gurcharan Singh and Ors vs. Angrez Kaur and Anr
Evidence Act, 1872 Sec. 68
Registration Act, 1908 Sec. 17

SC

19/03/2020

4.

Mukesh vs. State of NCT of Delhi
Constitution of India Art. 32

SC

19/03/2020

5.

New Delhi Television Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Income Tax Act, 1961 Sec. 148, Sec. 143, Sec. 147, Sec. 142, Sec. 149

SC

03/04/2020

6.

Pawan Kumar Gupta vs. State of NCT of Delhi
Constitution of India Art. 32

SC

20/03/2020

7.

Raja @ Ayyappan vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Constitution of India Art. 21
Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 120B
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 164, Sec. 313
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 Sec. 4, Sec. 19, Sec. 15, Sec. 3
Arms Act, 1959 Sec. 25, Sec. 7, Sec. 3
Explosive Substances Act, 1908 Sec. 5, Sec. 4
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Rules, 1987 Rule 15
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 Sec. 13

SC

01/04/2020

8.

Rajasthan State Electricity Board Jaipur vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax (Assessment) & Anr
Income Tax Act, 1961 Sec. 32, Sec. 143, Sec. 264, Sec. 154
Companies Act, 1956 Sec. 617
Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1991 Sec. 32

SC

19/03/2020

9.

Ram Chandra Prasad Singh vs. Sharad Yadav
Constitution of India Art. 226, Art. 102
Evidence Act, 1872 Sec. 8

SC

19/03/2020

10.

Union of India & Ors vs. R Thiyagarajan
Constitution of India Art. 142
Disaster Management Act, 2005 Sec. 44, Sec. 75
Disaster Management (National Disaster Response Force) Rules, 2008 Rule 3

SC

03/04/2020


SUPREME COURT WEEKLY DECISIONS


[1]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(Before Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Ajay Rastogi)

Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd vs. Rohit Prajapati & Ors

 

Constitution of India - Articles 142 and 226 - Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - Section 3 - Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 - Rule 5 - Closure of Industries - NGT issued direction for revocation of ECs and closure of three industries - Industries were charged for operating units without environment clearance - Challenged - Held - Though the three industries operated without an EC for several years, each of them had subsequently received ECs - These ECs have been operational since 2003 - All the three units have made infrastructural investments and employed significant numbers of workers in their industrial units - Court must take a balanced approach which holds the industries to account for having operated without environmental clearances in the past without ordering a closure of operations - Directions of the NGT for the revocation of the ECs and for closure of the units do not accord with the principle of proportionality - Three industries have evaded the legally binding regime of obtaining ECs - They cannot escape the liability incurred on account of such non-compliance - Penalties must be imposed for the disobedience with a binding legal regime - The breach by the industries cannot be left unattended by legal consequences - Instead and in place of the directions issued by the NGT, Court are of the view that it would be in the interests of justice to direct the three industries to deposit compensation quantified at Rs. 10 crores each - Order accordingly.

[Paras 31 to 38]

Law Point - Court must take a balanced approach which holds the industries to account for having operated without environmental clearances in the past without ordering a closure of operations.


Acts Referred :
Constitution of India Art. 142, Art. 226
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 Sec. 3
Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 Rule 5

To View Full Text of Judgement Click Here
Can also be Viewed on 'currentpublication.com' and 'Current Publications' Mobile App. Use Code : SC4935633


[2]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(Before L Nageswara Rao, Deepak Gupta)

Bhagwat Sharan (Dead thr Lrs ) vs. Purushottam & Ors

 

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XLI, Rule 27 - Will - Principle of election - Applicability - Held - A party cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate at the same time - In respect of Wills, this doctrine has been held to mean that a person who takes benefit of a portion of the Will cannot challenge the remaining portion of the Will - Party cannot be permitted to "blow hot and cold", "fast and loose" or "approbate and reprobate" - Where one party knowingly accepts the benefits of a contract or conveyance or an order, it is estopped to deny the validity or binding effect on him of such contract or conveyance or order - Any party which takes advantage of any instrument must accept all that is mentioned in the said document - Appeal dismissed.

[Paras 21 to 26]

Law Point - Any party which takes advantage of any instrument must accept all that is mentioned in the said document.


Acts Referred :
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Or. 41R. 27

To View Full Text of Judgement Click Here
Can also be Viewed on 'currentpublication.com' and 'Current Publications' Mobile App. Use Code : SC4935933


[3]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[Punjab And Haryana High Court]
(Before Ashok Bhushan, Navin Sinha)

Gurcharan Singh and Ors vs. Angrez Kaur and Anr

 

Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 68 - Registration Act, 1908 - Section 17 - Decree of Court - Registration - Held - It would be the duty of the Court to examine in each case whether the parties have pre-existing right to the immovable property, or whether under the order or decree of the Court one party having right, title or interest therein agreed or suffered to extinguish the same and created right, title or interest in praesenti in immovable property of the value of Rs. 100/- or upwards in favour of other party for the first time, either by compromise or pretended consent - If latter be the position, the document is compulsorily registrable - Appeal allowed.

[Paras 10 to 15]

Acts Referred :
Evidence Act, 1872 Sec. 68
Registration Act, 1908 Sec. 17

To View Full Text of Judgement Click Here
Can also be Viewed on 'currentpublication.com' and 'Current Publications' Mobile App. Use Code : SC4937857


[4]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[Delhi High Court]
(Before R Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan, A S Bopanna)

Mukesh vs. State of NCT of Delhi

 

Constitution of India - Article 32 - Petition against conviction - On ground of non consideration of evidence properly - Conviction was ordered by trial Court - Upheld by high Court and supreme Court - Review petition was dismissed - Curative petition was also dismissed - Mercy petition was dismissed by President of India - Challenge to rejection of mercy petition was also dismissed - Held - No ground is made out to entertain the writ petition - Petition dismissed.

[Paras 3 to 5]

Acts Referred :
Constitution of India Art. 32

To View Full Text of Judgement Click Here
Can also be Viewed on 'currentpublication.com' and 'Current Publications' Mobile App. Use Code : SC4938141


[5]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(Before L Nageswara Rao, Deepak Gupta)

New Delhi Television Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

 

Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 148, 143, 147, 142 and 149 - Escaped assessment - Notice was issued under Section 148 - No reason was given in notice - Revenue authorities no where mentioned in notice that it is taking shelter of second proviso to Section 148 - Later on revenue authorities took shelter of second proviso - Validity - Held - This is not fair procedure - If not in the first notice, at least at time of furnishing reasons, the assessee should have been informed that revenue relied upon second proviso - Assessee must be put to notice of all the provisions on which revenue authorities relied upon - Assessee did not get proper opportunity to reply to allegation which are now being relied upon by revenue - Notice is quashed - Appeal allowed.

[Paras 38 to 43]

Law Point - Assessee must be put to notice of all the provisions on which revenue authorities relied upon.


Acts Referred :
Income Tax Act, 1961 Sec. 148, Sec. 143, Sec. 147, Sec. 142, Sec. 149

To View Full Text of Judgement Click Here
Can also be Viewed on 'currentpublication.com' and 'Current Publications' Mobile App. Use Code : SC4938265


[6]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[Delhi High Court]
(Before R Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan, A S Bopanna)

Pawan Kumar Gupta vs. State of NCT of Delhi

 

Constitution of India - Article 32 - Judicial review - Of order rejecting mercy petition - On ground that there is miscarriage of justice, plea of juvenile was not considered and torture in prison - Held - Claim of petitioner regarding juvenile has already been rejected by sessions Court and other Courts below - Alleged torture in prison cannot be ground for judicial review of executive order passed under Article 72 rejecting mercy petition - No ground to entertain petition - Petition dismissed.

[Paras 13 to 20]

Law Point - Torture in prison cannot be ground for judicial review of executive order passed under Article 72 rejecting mercy petition.


Acts Referred :
Constitution of India Art. 32

To View Full Text of Judgement Click Here
Can also be Viewed on 'currentpublication.com' and 'Current Publications' Mobile App. Use Code : SC4938335


[7]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[Madras High Court]
(Before S Abdul Nazeer, Deepak Gupta)

Raja @ Ayyappan vs. State of Tamil Nadu

 

Constitution of India - Article 21 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 120B - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 164 and 313 - Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - Sections 4, 19, 15 and 3 - Arms Act, 1959 - Sections 25, 7 and 3 - Explosive Substances Act, 1908 - Sections 5 and 4 - Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Rules, 1987 - Rule 15 - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Section 13 - Appeal against conviction - Conviction on basis of confession of co accused - Appellant was absconding - Appellant faced trial at later stage - Held - To make the confession of a co-accused admissible in evidence, there has to be a joint trial - If there is no joint trial, the confession of a co - Accused is not at all admissible in evidence and, therefore, the same cannot be taken as evidence against the other co-accused - The confession of the co-accused, is also a substantive piece of evidence provided that there is a joint trial-appellant was absconding - Joint trial of the appellant with the other two accused persons could not be held - That if for any reason, a joint trial is not held, the confession of a co-accused cannot be held to be admissible in evidence against another accused who would face trial at a later point of time in the same case - Appeal allowed.

[Paras 25 to 31]

Law Point - The confession of the co-accused, is also a substantive piece of evidence provided that there is a joint trial.


Acts Referred :
Constitution of India Art. 21
Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 120B
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 164, Sec. 313
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 Sec. 4, Sec. 19, Sec. 15, Sec. 3
Arms Act, 1959 Sec. 25, Sec. 7, Sec. 3
Explosive Substances Act, 1908 Sec. 5, Sec. 4
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Rules, 1987 Rule 15
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 Sec. 13

To View Full Text of Judgement Click Here
Can also be Viewed on 'currentpublication.com' and 'Current Publications' Mobile App. Use Code : SC4939129


[8]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[Rajasthan High Court]
(Before Ashok Bhushan, Mohan M Shantanagoudar)

Rajasthan State Electricity Board Jaipur vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax (Assessment) & Anr

 

Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 32, 143, 264 and 154 - Companies Act, 1956 - Section 617 - Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1991 - Section 32 - Evasion of tax liability - Applicability of Section 143(1-A) - Held - Burden of proving that the assessee has attempted to evade tax is on the Revenue which may be discharged by the Revenue by establishing facts and circumstances from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that the assessee has, in fact, attempted to evade tax lawfully payable by it - Section 143(1-A) can only be invoked when the lesser amount stated in the return filed by the assessee is a result of an attempt to evade tax lawfully payable by the assessee - Appeal allowed.

[Paras 16 to 21]

Law Point - Section 143(1-A) can only be invoked when the lesser amount stated in the return filed by the assessee is a result of an attempt to evade tax lawfully payable by the assessee.


Acts Referred :
Income Tax Act, 1961 Sec. 32, Sec. 143, Sec. 264, Sec. 154
Companies Act, 1956 Sec. 617
Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1991 Sec. 32

To View Full Text of Judgement Click Here
Can also be Viewed on 'currentpublication.com' and 'Current Publications' Mobile App. Use Code : SC4939562


[9]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[Delhi High Court]
(Before Ashok Bhushan, M R Shah)

Ram Chandra Prasad Singh vs. Sharad Yadav

 

Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 102 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 8 - Subsequent event - Respondent No. 1 was disqualified as member of Rajya Sabha - Disqualification order was challenged by respondent No. 1 in writ - Application was filed by appellant in writ with prayer to take subsequent events on record - Dismissed - Held - Subsequent event cannot be considered for testing the legality of order impugned or for moulding the relief in writ - Petition dismissed.

[Paras 12 to 18]

Law Point - Subsequent event cannot be considered for testing the legality of order impugned or for moulding the relief in writ.


Acts Referred :
Constitution of India Art. 226, Art. 102
Evidence Act, 1872 Sec. 8

To View Full Text of Judgement Click Here
Can also be Viewed on 'currentpublication.com' and 'Current Publications' Mobile App. Use Code : SC4939620


[10]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[Madras High Court]
(Before Deepak Gupta, Aniruddha Bose)

Union of India & Ors vs. R Thiyagarajan

 

Constitution of India - Article 142 - Disaster Management Act, 2005 - Sections 44 and 75 - Disaster Management (National Disaster Response Force) Rules, 2008 - Rule 3 - Service matters - Matter relating to payment of deputation allowance - Power of High Court - To pass order - Territorial jurisdiction - Held - In any event, Supreme Court exercises jurisdiction over the entire country whereas the jurisdiction of the High Court is limited to the territorial jurisdiction of the State(s) of which it is the High Court - High Court may be justified in passing such an order when it only affects the employees of the State falling within its jurisdiction but it could not have passed such an order in the case of employees where pan India repercussions would be involved - Appeal partly allowed.

[Paras 15 to 18]

Law Point - High Court may be justified in passing such an order when it only affects the employees of the State falling within its jurisdiction but it could not have passed such an order in the case of employees where pan India repercussions would be involved.


Acts Referred :
Constitution of India Art. 142
Disaster Management Act, 2005 Sec. 44, Sec. 75
Disaster Management (National Disaster Response Force) Rules, 2008 Rule 3

To View Full Text of Judgement Click Here
Can also be Viewed on 'currentpublication.com' and 'Current Publications' Mobile App. Use Code : SC4939051



IMPORTANT

Although every care has been taken to avoid errors or omissions, this publication is being sold on the condition and understanding that information given in this Magazine is merely for reference and must not be taken as having authority of or binding in any way on the Authors, Editors, Publishers and sellers who do not owe any responsibility for any damage or loss to any person, a purchaser of this publication or nor, for the result of any action taken on the basis of this work. The publishers shall be highly obliged if mistakes are brought to their notice for carrying out corrections.



Published by :
Amit Nanda
for Current Infotech
8, Karanjia House, 653, JSS Road, Marine Lines (E), Mumbai 400 002
Tel:- (022) 22012143 * 22018485
E-Mail : currentinfotech@gmail.com.
Webstore : www.currentpublication.com

 

------------------