Current's
Case Pointer
SUPREME COURT AND BOMBAY HIGH 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

11.

Abhijeet Ashoka Infra Structure Pvt Limited vs. Joint District Registrar (Class-I); Chief Controlling Revenue Authority (Appellate Authority), Maharashtra State, Pune
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Sec. 105
Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 Sec. 6, Sec. 2, Sec. 54, Sec. 39, Sec. 3, Sec. 53

BHC

06/03/2020

12.

Amita Bhomkar, w/o late Tatu @ Nilesh Bhomkar vs. State, as represented by the Officer in Charge; The Public Prosecutor
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 313
Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 27, Sec. 302

BHC

09/03/2020

13.

Amitabh Ramsharan Nigam vs. Amit Rghunandan Saran Sharma; Shiwani Amit Sharma
Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 Sec. 43, Sec. 24
Oaths Act, 1969 Sec. 7

BHC

04/03/2020

14.

Area Manager/Sub Area Manager, Western Coal Field Ltd , Chandrapur vs. Anusuya Narsayya Sirsilla; Prashant S/O Narsayya Sirsilla; Rajkumar Narsayya Sirsilla
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 174
Employees Compensation Act, 1923 Sec. 22, Sec. 10A, Sec. 30, Sec. 3(1), Sec. 3

BHC

06/03/2020

15.

Chase Security Services; Ravindra Prabhakar Sawant, son of Shri. Prabhakar Gajanan Sawant vs. State of Goa, Through the Chief Secretary; Chief Secretary, Government of Goa; The Controlling Authority
Private Security Agencies Regulation) Act, 2005
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 167
Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 353, Sec. 386

BHC

11/03/2020

16.

Jaggu Sardar @ Jagdish Tirathsing Labana @ Punjabi vs. State of Maharashtra (Through Office of Government Pleader, High Court, A S Mumbai); Section Officer, Home Department (Special), Mumbai; Police Commissioner, Police Commissioner Office, Thane
Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 504, Sec. 387, Sec. 506, Sec. 386
Bombay Police Act, 1951 Sec. 135, Sec. 37
Arms Act, 1959 Sec. 25, Sec. 4
Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offender, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 Sec. 3

BHC

09/03/2020

17.

Lahu Bhausaheb Sonwane vs. State of Maharashtra, Through Police Inspector, Police Station, Shrirampur, Dist Ahmednagar; X
Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 376, Sec. 363, Sec. 366A
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 428, Sec. 357, Sec. 313

BHC

09/03/2020

18.

Milind Bhimsing Shirsath vs. The State of Maharashtra; Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Pune Division; Maharashtra Council of Agriculture Education and Research, Pune; College of Agriculture Through its Principal;
Maharashtra Schedule Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification Of) Caste Certificate Act,2000 Sec. 6
Constitution of India Art. 226

BHC

09/03/2020

19.

One Square Investments Limited.; Narinder Dhandsa; Rajindar Dhandsa; Surinder Dhandsa; John Caird vs. Capri UK Investments Limited; Narinder Dhandsa; Rajindar Dhandsa; Surinder Dhandsa; John Caird
Companies Act, 1956
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Or. 9R. 13, Sec. 151, Or. 8R. 10, Or. 8R. 5
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 Sec. 15

BHC

06/03/2020

20.

The State of Maharashtra vs. Shaikh Jabbarlal Mohamad
Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 304A, Sec. 427
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Sec. 78, Sec. 112, Sec. 116

BHC

05/03/2020


SUPREME COURT AND BOMBAY HIGH 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


[11]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

[Nagpur Bench]
(Before A S Chandurkar; Vinay Joshi)

Abhijeet Ashoka Infra Structure Pvt Limited vs. Joint District Registrar (Class-I); Chief Controlling Revenue Authority (Appellate Authority), Maharashtra State, Pune

 

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 105 - Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 - Sections 6, 2, 54, 39, 3 and 53 - Lease - Parties entered into concessional agreement, authority treated the agreement as lease - Challenged - Held - By virtue of execution of said document the party constructing the bridge was entitled to recover the cost of the project through collection of toll from the vehicles using the said bridge during the period of 18 years 9 months - Said document therefore creates a right in favour of the petitioner to recover fees from vehicles using the bridge - Concession Agreement is thus an "instrument" as defined by Section 2(l) - Concession Agreement has been rightly found to be chargeable as a lease as defined by Section 2(n) of the said Act - Article 36 (b) of Schedule-I has rightly been made applicable rather than Article 5(h) of the said Act in view of the fact that Section 6 mandates a document to be charged with the higher duty prescribed when it comes under two or more descriptions in Section Schedule-I - Petition dismissed.

[Paras 8 to 12]

Law Point - Concessional agreement for charging toll from vehicle using bridge to recover cost thereof, was held as lease and chargeable as lease.


Acts Referred :
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Sec. 105
Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 Sec. 6, Sec. 2, Sec. 54, Sec. 39, Sec. 3, Sec. 53

To View Full Text of Judgement Click Here
Can also be Viewed on 'currentpublication.com' and 'Current Publications' Mobile App. Use Code : BHC31346030


[12]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

[Goa Bench]
(Before M S SONAK; SMT M S JAWALKAR)

Amita Bhomkar, w/o late Tatu @ Nilesh Bhomkar vs. State, as represented by the Officer in Charge; The Public Prosecutor

 

(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 313 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 27 and 302 - Dying declaration - Reliability - Deceased was habitual drunkard - At time of incident, he was heavily under influence of liquor - Held - There is nothing on record to show that he made statement, while he was conscious and in fit condition to give such statement - Dying declaration is not reliable.

[Para 21]

(B) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 313 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 27 and 302 - Last seen theory - Conviction - Held - For application of last seen theory, the accused and deceased have to be seen together by someone within the proximate time of death of deceased - Appeal allowed.

[Paras 22 and 23]

Law Point - For application of last seen theory, the accused and deceased have to be seen together by sameone within the proximate time of death of deceased.


Acts Referred :
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 313
Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 27, Sec. 302

To View Full Text of Judgement Click Here
Can also be Viewed on 'currentpublication.com' and 'Current Publications' Mobile App. Use Code : BHC31244512


[13]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

[Nagpur Bench]
(Before Manish Pitale)

Amitabh Ramsharan Nigam vs. Amit Rghunandan Saran Sharma; Shiwani Amit Sharma

 

Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Sections 43 and 24 - Oaths Act, 1969 - Section 7 - Leave to defend - Eviction proceeding - Application was filed by Counsel of petitioner seeking leave to defend under his own signature without affidavit - Rejected - Held - Requirement of Section 43(4)(a) of the said Act is mandatory in nature - Application filed by the Counsel under his signature seeking leave to contest the application for eviction by stating certain grounds, in the absence of any affidavit of the petitioner raising such grounds, cannot be said to have satisfied the mandatory requirement of Section 43(4)(a) of the said Act - Petition dismissed.

[Paras 13 to 19]

Law Point - Requirement of Section 43(4)(a) of the said Act is mandatory in nature.


Acts Referred :
Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 Sec. 43, Sec. 24
Oaths Act, 1969 Sec. 7

To View Full Text of Judgement Click Here
Can also be Viewed on 'currentpublication.com' and 'Current Publications' Mobile App. Use Code : BHC3942967


[14]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

[Nagpur Bench]
(Before Vinay Joshi)

Area Manager/Sub Area Manager, Western Coal Field Ltd , Chandrapur vs. Anusuya Narsayya Sirsilla; Prashant S/O Narsayya Sirsilla; Rajkumar Narsayya Sirsilla

 

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 174 - Employees Compensation Act, 1923 - Sections 22, 10A, 30, 3(1) and 3 - Compensation - Deceased was employee of appellant on day of incident, deceased joined his duty - After some time, he told to his collogues that he feels tired and slept on floor - He was taken to hospital where he was declared as dead - Commissioner awarded compensation - Challenged - Held - Since there is no evidence of any prior history of any heart ailment, the heart failure may have suffered by the deceased must be held to be an accident - Liability of the employer under the Act is conceptually quite different from the liability under tort - Even in cases where a person has been suffering from heart disease, if the nature of the work has contributed to the deterioration of the heart and his death, the personal injury can be said to arise out of his employment - Case where the deceased was not suffering from any previous heart disease, to my mind a stronger case and in such circumstances if he suddenly gets a heart attack while on duty, the accident can be nothing but arising out of his employment - Even though there is no plausible medical evidence to project that the proximate cause for the death was due to the strain and stress, still the other circumstances found in this case show a casual connection between employment and death - Occurrence as a whole is clear enough to convey that there is casual connection between death of workman and his employment - Inference drawn by the Commissioner is based on the relevant circumstances which cannot be said to be perverse - Appeal dismissed.

[Paras 34 to 40]

Law Point - Even in cases where a person has been suffering from heart disease, if the nature of the work has contributed to the deterioration of the heart and his death, the personal injury can be said to arise out of his employment.


Acts Referred :
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 174
Employees Compensation Act, 1923 Sec. 22, Sec. 10A, Sec. 30, Sec. 3(1), Sec. 3

To View Full Text of Judgement Click Here
Can also be Viewed on 'currentpublication.com' and 'Current Publications' Mobile App. Use Code : BHC31346163


[15]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

[Goa Bench]
(Before M S SONAK; SMT M S JAWALKAR)

Chase Security Services; Ravindra Prabhakar Sawant, son of Shri. Prabhakar Gajanan Sawant vs. State of Goa, Through the Chief Secretary; Chief Secretary, Government of Goa; The Controlling Authority

 

Private Security Agencies Regulation) Act, 2005 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 167 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 353 and 386 - License to run security agency - Declined by authority - On ground that case of petitioners are covered under provision of Section 6(1)(b) of Act of 2005 - Petitioners were charged for offence - Court imposed fine - Held - No punishment of imprisonment was ever imposed upon petitioners and Court was content with imposition of fine upon petitioners - Petitioners' case is not covered under Section 6(1)(b) - Application of petitioner would not have been rejected - Rule made absolute.

[Paras 13 to 21]

Acts Referred :
Private Security Agencies Regulation) Act, 2005
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 167
Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 353, Sec. 386

To View Full Text of Judgement Click Here
Can also be Viewed on 'currentpublication.com' and 'Current Publications' Mobile App. Use Code : BHC31345250


[16]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

(Before S S Shinde; V G Bisht)

Jaggu Sardar @ Jagdish Tirathsing Labana @ Punjabi vs. State of Maharashtra (Through Office of Government Pleader, High Court, A S Mumbai); Section Officer, Home Department (Special), Mumbai; Police Commissioner, Police Commissioner Office, Thane

 

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 504, 387, 506 and 386 - Bombay Police Act, 1951 - Sections 135 and 37 - Arms Act, 1959 - Sections 25 and 4 - Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offender, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 - Section 3 - Detention order - Validity - Challenged - Mainly on ground that representation submitted by petitioner was not considered - Held - Authority denied receipt of any representation - No proof of submission of representation was produced by detenue - Petitioner was supplied entire material to be used against him - He was also told about his right - In camera statements were verified - No case for interference is made about - Petition dismissed.

[Paras 13 to 22]

Acts Referred :
Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 504, Sec. 387, Sec. 506, Sec. 386
Bombay Police Act, 1951 Sec. 135, Sec. 37
Arms Act, 1959 Sec. 25, Sec. 4
Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offender, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 Sec. 3

To View Full Text of Judgement Click Here
Can also be Viewed on 'currentpublication.com' and 'Current Publications' Mobile App. Use Code : BHC31346563


[17]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

[Aurangabad Bench]
(Before Vibha Kankanwadi)

Lahu Bhausaheb Sonwane vs. State of Maharashtra, Through Police Inspector, Police Station, Shrirampur, Dist Ahmednagar; X

 

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 376, 363 and 366A - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 428, 357 and 313 - Appeal against conviction - Appellant was convicted for offence punishable under Section 363, 366A, and 376 - Victim went with accused voluntarily - Victim left her home voluntarily. No reliable evidence was produced by prosecution that the victim was minor at time of incident - Held - Impugned order is perverse - Appeal allowed.

[Paras 10 to 14]

Acts Referred :
Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 376, Sec. 363, Sec. 366A
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec. 428, Sec. 357, Sec. 313

To View Full Text of Judgement Click Here
Can also be Viewed on 'currentpublication.com' and 'Current Publications' Mobile App. Use Code : BHC31244197


[18]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

(Before S S SHINDE; V G BISHT)

Milind Bhimsing Shirsath vs. The State of Maharashtra; Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Pune Division; Maharashtra Council of Agriculture Education and Research, Pune; College of Agriculture Through its Principal;

 

Maharashtra Schedule Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification Of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 - Section 6 - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Caste claim - Validation - Duty of committee - Held - Matters pertaining to validity of caste have a great impact on the candidate as well as on the future generations in many matters varying from marriage to education and enjoyment, and therefore where a committee has given a finding about the validity of the caste of a candidate, another committee ought not to refuse the same status to a blood relative who applies - A merely different view on the same facts would not entitle the committee dealing with the subsequent caste claim to reject it - Petition disposed off.

[Paras 8 to 11]

Law Point - Where a committee has given a finding about the validity of the caste of a candidate, another committee ought not to refuse the same status to a blood relative who applies.


Acts Referred :
Maharashtra Schedule Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification Of) Caste Certificate Act,2000 Sec. 6
Constitution of India Art. 226

To View Full Text of Judgement Click Here
Can also be Viewed on 'currentpublication.com' and 'Current Publications' Mobile App. Use Code : BHC31157760


[19]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

(Before N J JAMADAR)

One Square Investments Limited.; Narinder Dhandsa; Rajindar Dhandsa; Surinder Dhandsa; John Caird vs. Capri UK Investments Limited; Narinder Dhandsa; Rajindar Dhandsa; Surinder Dhandsa; John Caird

 

(A) Companies Act, 1956 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order IX, Rule 13, Section 151; Order VIII, Rule 10; Order VIII, Rule 5 - Commercial Courts Act, 2015 Section 15 - Condonation of delay - Sufficient cause - Held - Term 'sufficient cause', whenever used by the legislature to relieve a party of the consequence of default or inadvertence ordinarily receives a liberal construction - Courts lean in favour of a liberal construction for the purpose of advancing the cause of substantive justice - Law favours determination of a lis, on merits, after providing an effective opportunity to the parties - This overriding objective warrants a liberal consideration of the cause assigned by a party where a delay or inaction is sought to be condoned - Term 'sufficient cause' in a broader sense, implies that there was no negligence, mala fide or deliberate inaction, on the part of the party seeking the relief.

[Paras 38 to 42]

(B) Companies Act, 1956 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order IX, Rule 13, Section 151, Order VIII, Rule 10; Order VIII, Rule 5 - Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Section 15 - Written statement - Time limit - Held - Prothonotary and Senior Master could not have prescribed the time limit for filing the written statement and passed an order transferring the suit to the list of undefended suits, upon failure of the defendants to file the written statement within the stipulated period, having noted that the suit was required to be dealt with as a commercial suit, governed by the provisions of Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the defendants deserve an opportunity to file written statement within the period to be prescribed by the Commercial Court under Section 15(4) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Notice of motion allowed.

[Paras 38 to 42]

Law Point - Term 'sufficient cause' in a broader sense, implies that there was no negligence, malafide or deliberate inaction, on the part of the party seeking the relief.


Acts Referred :
Companies Act, 1956
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Or. 9R. 13, Sec. 151, Or. 8R. 10, Or. 8R. 5
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 Sec. 15

To View Full Text of Judgement Click Here
Can also be Viewed on 'currentpublication.com' and 'Current Publications' Mobile App. Use Code : BHC31347316


[20]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

(Before K R SHRIRAM)

The State of Maharashtra vs. Shaikh Jabbarlal Mohamad

 

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 304A and 427 - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 78, 112 and 116 - Appeal against acquittal - Re-appreciation of evidence - By appellate Court - Held - An appellate Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded - Code puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law - An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the the accused - Appeal dismissed.

[Para 7]

Law Point - An appellate Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.


Acts Referred :
Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 304A, Sec. 427
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Sec. 78, Sec. 112, Sec. 116

To View Full Text of Judgement Click Here
Can also be Viewed on 'currentpublication.com' and 'Current Publications' Mobile App. Use Code : BHC31158217



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

 

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