Skip to content
Home » 50 Important Supreme Court Cases October 2021

50 Important Supreme Court Cases October 2021

1. Service Law – Assistant Public Prosecutors – Transport (Subordinate) Prosecution Service Rules, 1979 (Uttar Pradesh) – State Public Services Tribunal – Respondent was working as a Cashier in the Transport Department – While in service, for some alleged misconduct, departmental inquiry was initiated against him and was later dismissed from service – the respondent during the pendency of litigation attained the age of superannuation – persons who were junior to him were promoted/appointed as Assistant Public Prosecutors – Once his position has been restored after order of dismissal being set aside, he too is entitled for promotion from the date his juniors were promoted as Assistant Public Prosecutors – the grievance of the respondent is not sustainable for the reason that the recruitment to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor shall be made by direct recruitment on the basis of a competitive examination followed by a Viva Voce test to be conducted by the Commission – This fact has been completely ignored by the Tribunal and so also by the High Court in the order impugned. *Ajay Rastogi; Abhay S. Oka, JJ. State of U.P.  v. Shyam Lal Jaiswal, C. A. No. 6251 of 2021 07-10-2021

2. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 25 – Transfer of Case pending before Family Court Delhi to Uttarakhand – Husband is posted at Delhi while the wife is doing her Ph.D. at Himachal Pradesh – Transfer Petition is allowed. J.K. Maheshwari; J. Priyanka Arya v. Ashutosh Arya, T.P. (c) No. 62/2021 01-10-2021

3. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Whether a Preliminary Inquiry is mandatory before registering an FIR Held, In case the information received by the CBI, through a complaint or a “source information” under Chapter 8, discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, it can directly register a Regular Case instead of conducting a Preliminary Enquiry, where the officer is satisfied that the information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. *Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Vikram Nath, B.V. Nagarathna, JJJ. Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) v. Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi @ T. H. Vijayalakshmi, Crl. A. No. 1045 of 2021 08-10-2021

4. Forest Law – Forest Act, 1961 (Kerala) – Sections 2 (f), 27 (1) (d), 61A, 69 – Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1975 (Kerala) – Rule 3 (iii) read with Rule 23 – “forest” – “forest-produce”sandalwood – Confiscation by Forest Officers in certain cases Presumption of culpable mental state the State had to show, that the forest produce was illicitly removed, or was illicitly in the possession of the accused, and in either case, that the same was within his knowledge. This foundational fact has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Thereafter, the accused has to establish, a credible or reasonable explanation. Indira Banerjee; *S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ. Bharath Booshan Aggarwal v. State of Kerala, Crl. A. No. 834 of 2009 06-10-2021

5. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 25B and 25F – Plea on absence of jurisdiction – Whether the suit before the civil court at the instance of the terminated employee, was maintainable ? held, the civil court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a suit structured on the provisions of the ID Act. The decree favouring the plaintiff is a legal nullity. R. Subhash Reddy; *Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. Milkhi Ram v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, C. A. No. 1346 of 2010 08-10-2021

6. Family Law – Transfer Petition filed by wife seeking transfer of divorce petition filed by the husband in Varanasi to Muzaffarpur – Transfer petition is allowed. S. Ravindra Bhat; J. Aarati Kumari v. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, T. P. (c) No. 232 / 2018 04-10-2021

7. Forest Act, 1927 – Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 20 – Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (U.P.) – Sections 4 & 117 – Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (U.P.) – Power to reserve forests – Notification by State Government – Bar of accrual of forest rights – Proclamation by Forest Settlement-officer – Notification declaring forest reserved – Vesting of certain lands etc., in Gaon Sabhas and other local authorities – Held, the revenue record is not a document of title. Therefore, even if the name of the lessee finds mention in the revenue record but such entry without any supporting documents of creation of lease contemplated under the Forest Act is inconsequential and does not create any right, title or interest over 12 bighas of land claimed to be in possession of the lessee as a lessee of the Gaon Sabha. *Hemant Gupta; V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. Prabhagiya Van Adhikari Awadh Van Ppabhag v. Arun Kumar Bhardwaj (dead) Thr. Lrs., C. A. No. 7017 of 2009 05-10-2021

8. Specific Performance – Readiness and Willingness – Affidavit filed before the High Court for the first time – Procedure adopted by the High Court relying upon the affidavit in a First Appeal by which virtually without submitting any application for amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, the High Court as a First Appellate Court has taken on record the affidavit and as such relied upon the same. Such a procedure is untenable and unknown to law. *M.R. Shah; A.S. Bopanna, JJ. K. Karuppuraj v. M. Ganesan, C. A. No. 6014 of 2021 04-10-2021

9. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – If any evidence before the Tribunal runs contrary to the contents in the First Information Report, the evidence which is recorded before the Tribunal has to be given weightage over the contents of the First Information Report. *R. Subhash Reddy; Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Chamundeswari, C. A. No. 6151 of 2021 01-10-2021

10. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166 – Income of the Deceased – In absence of salary certificate the minimum wage notification can be a yardstick but at the same time cannot be an absolute one to fix the income of the deceased. In absence of documentary evidence on record some amount of guesswork is required to be done. But at the same time the guesswork for assessing the income of the deceased should not be totally detached from reality. Merely because claimants were unable to produce documentary evidence to show the monthly income, same does not justify adoption of lowest tier of minimum wage while computing the income. There is no reason to discard the oral evidence of the wife of the deceased who has deposed that the was earning around Rs.15000/­ per month. *R. Subhash Reddy; Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. Chandra @ Chnada @ Chandraram v. Mukesh Kumar Yadav, C. A. No. 6152 of 2021 01-10-2021

11. Anticipatory Bail – Absconder – While granting bail, especially anticipatory bail which is per se extraordinary in nature, the possibility of the accused to influence prosecution witnesses, threatening the family members of the deceased, fleeing from justice or creating other impediments in the fair investigation, ought not to be overlooked. Even if there was any procedural irregularity in declaring the Accused as an absconder, that by itself was not a justifiable ground to grant pre­arrest bail in a case of grave offence. The conduct of the Accused in absconding for more than two years without any justifiable reason should have weighed in mind while granting any discretionary relief. N.V. Ramana, C.J., *Surya Kant, Hima Kohli, JJ. Vipan Kumar Dhir v. State of Punjab, Crl. A. No. 1161 of 2021 04-10-2021

12. Criminal Trial – Retrial, Joint Trial and Separate Trials – Power to Direct Joint Trial – Important Principles explained. *Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Vikram Nath, B.V. Nagarathna, JJJ. Nasib Singh v. State of Punjab, Crl. A. No. 1051 of 2021 08-10-2021

13. Family Law – Transfer Petition – Wife seeking transfer of divorce petition filed by the husband in Chennai Varanasi – case for transfer is not warranted but in the larger interest of justice, orders for the conduct of the proceedings are warranted – Upon agreement of the parties, the Family Court at Chennai, shall in the event of availability of Video/Electronic infrastructure, conduct the proceedings online for the effective participation of both the parties – In the event, the petitioner’s presence is necessary, the Court shall fix such successive/ consecutive date(s) as may be convenient to the petitioner. The Family Court at Chennai shall decide the case as expeditiously as possible. S. Ravindra Bhat, J. Pooja Hemani @ Namrata Hemdev v. Manish Hemdev, T. P. (c) No. 924 / 2021 04-10-2021

14. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 161 and 164 – Delay in recording statements of eyewitnesses – It is true that there was some delay in recording the statements of the concerned eye-witnesses but mere factum of delay by itself cannot result in rejection of their testimonies. The material on record definitely establishes the fear created by the accused. If the witnesses felt terrorised and frightened and did not come forward for some time, the delay in recording their statements stood adequately explained. Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat, Bela M. Trivedi, JJJ. Goutam Joardar v. State of West Bengal, Crl.A. No.1181 of 2019 07-10-2021

15. Family Law – Transfer Petition filed by the wife seeking transfer of divorce petition filed by the husband in Andhra Pradesh to Odisha – Held, the interest of justice would be best subserved if the proceedings are allowed to continue in the Court at Vizianagaram, Andhra Pradesh, subject to the condition that the respondent-husband would pay to the petitioner-wife a sum of Rs.10000/- for her expenses on account of travel, boarding and lodging on the date(s) of hearing or as and when her presence may be required by the Court concerned. It is clarified that such amount shall be made over by the respondent to the petitioner on every date when she attends the Court at Vizianagaram. S. Ravindra Bhat, J. Ruchika Swain v. Sandeep Kumar Mallick, T. P. (c) No. 833 / 2020 04-10-2021

16. Family Law – Transfer petition has been filed by the wife seeking transfer of divorce petition filed by the husband in New Delhi to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Rajasthan – Transfer Petition allowed. S. Ravindra Bhat, J. Bagdi Bai @ Bindu v. Laxman, T. P. (c) No. 759 / 2019 04-10-2021

17. Electricity Act 2003 – Late Payment Surcharge (LPS) – Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC) acted within the scope of its power of regulatory supervision in directing the Appellant to make payment of LPS within the time stipulated in the order of MERC. The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) rightly upheld the direction. In any case, such a direction cannot be interfered with in exercise of powers under Section 125 of the Electricity Act which corresponds to the power of Second Appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, since the sine qua non for entertaining an appeal is the existence of a substantial question of law. *Indira Banerjee, V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited v. Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission, C. A. No. 1843 / 2021 08-10-2021

18. Employment Law – the selection list was not challenged by the respondent. His only ground for challenge was that he had to be selected since he was ‘more meritorious’ as he had better qualifying marks. Therefore, determining the legality of the selection list and perusing the entire selection list to determine whether the selection of the appellant was arbitrary was erroneous as the Division Bench transgressed the limits of challenge in the writ petition. *Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. Sri Srinivas K Gouda v. Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences, C.A. No. 6217 of 2021 08-10-2021

19. Code of Civil Procedure 1908 – Order XXI – Execution – Provisions available to a judgment-­debtor to stall execution – the case on hand is fit to be included in the syllabus of a law school as a study material for students to get equipped with the various provisions of the Code relating to execution. Hemant Gupta, *V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. Dipali Biswas v. Nirmalendu Mukherjee, C. A. No. 4557 of 2012 05-10-2021

20. Anticipatory Bail Cancellation of – Difference in the approach that the Court must adopt while considering a challenge to an order which has granted bail and an application for cancelling the bail granted – Explained. *Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. Prashant Singh Rajput v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Crl. A. No. 1202 of 2021 08-10-2021

21. DNA Test (Deoxyribonucleic Acid Test) – Whether in a declaratory suit where ownership over coparcenary property is claimed, the plaintiff, against his wishes, can be subjected to the DNA test ? – Whether the plaintiff without subjecting himself to a DNA test, is entitled to establish his right over the property in question, through other material evidence – The plaintiff has already led evidence from his side to prove relationship between the parties and at this stage whether the Court should have directed the plaintiff to undergo the DNA test – Whether in the absence of consent, a party can be forced to provide sample for a DNA test – Whether refusal to undergo DNA Testing amounts to ‘other evidence’ or can an adverse inference be drawn in such situation ? Explained. R. Subhash Reddy, *Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. Ashok Kumar v. Raj Gupta, C. A. No. 6153 of 2021 01-10-2021

22. Bar Council of India – Disciplinary Committee – no reason to interfere in the order impugned passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India Civil Appeal dismissed. Ajay Rastogi, Abhay S. Oka, JJ. Ramesh Chand Goyal v. Balbir Singh Chakkal, C. A. No. 5111 / 2021 04-10-2021

23. Fraud – Custody of Child – Since the false and fraudulent representations made were the foundation, on the basis of which the Court was persuaded to handover custody of child, it shall be the duty of the Court to nullify, in every way, the effect and impact of the orders which were obtained by playing fraud upon the Court. *Uday Umesh Lalit, Hemant Gupta, Ajay Rastogi, JJJ. Smriti Madan Kansagra v. Perry Kansagra, M.A. of 2021 07-10-2021

24. Penal Code, 1860 – Section 306 – Student of Class 9 committed suicide – The mother of the deceased-student lodged the FIR alleging that her son committed suicide due to mental harassment meted out by the Physical Training Teacher – Held, The disciplinary measures adopted by a teacher or other authorities of a school, reprimanding a student for his indiscipline, would not tantamount to provoking a student to commit suicide, unless there are repeated specific allegations of harassment and insult deliberately without any justifiable cause or reason. S. Abdul Nazeer, *Krishna Murari, JJ. Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan, Crl. A. No. 1164 of 2021 05-10-2021

25. Public Interest Litigation – Misappropriation of government funds in implementation of the housing scheme in the municipality – If there are allegations with respect to commission of cognizable offences, brought to the notice of the police authorities, ordinarily an FIR has to be lodged. L. Nageswara Rao, *S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ. Shaikh Ansar Ahmad Md Husain v. State of Maharashtra, C.A. No. 695 of 2021 05-10-2021

26. Employment – Criminal Background – Post of Constable in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) – If a person is acquitted giving him the benefit of doubt, from the charge of an offence involving moral turpitude or because the witnesses turned hostile, it would not automatically entitle him for the employment, that too in disciplined force. The employer is having a right to consider his candidature in terms of the circulars issued by the Screening Committee. The mere disclosure of the offences alleged and the result of the trial is not sufficient. In the said situation, the employer cannot be compelled to give appointment to the candidate. Indira Banerjee, *J.K. Maheshwari Union of India v. Methu Meda, C. A. No. 6238 of 2021 06-10-2021

27. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 31(7)(a) – Payment of Interest – Law relating to award of pendente lite interest by Arbitrator – The provisions of the 1996 Act give paramount importance to the contract entered into between the parties and categorically restricts the power of an arbitrator to award pre-­reference and pendente lite interest when the parties themselves have agreed to the contrary – If the contract prohibits pre­-reference and pendente lite interest, the arbitrator cannot award interest for the said period. S. Abdul Nazeer, Krishna Murari, JJ. Garg Builders v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, C. A. No. 6216 of 2021 04-10-2021

28. Service Law – Principle governing the grant of appointment on compassionate ground – The compassionate ground is a concession and not a right – the dependent/applicant cannot seek the appointment on compassionate ground on the higher post than what was held by the deceased employee as a matter of right, on the ground that he/she is eligible fulfilling the eligibility criteria of such higher post. *M.R. Shah; A.S. Bopanna, JJ. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Premlata, C. A. No. 6003 of 2021 05-10-2021

29. Government Accommodation – The Government accommodation is meant for serving officers and cannot be taken as a recourse to stay in Government accommodation for the life time of the Government servants or his/her spouse. *Hemant Gupta, V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. Union of India through Director of Estates v. Onkar Nath Dhar, M.A. of 2021 07-10-2021

30. Service Law – Part-time employees are not entitled to seek regularization as they are not working against any sanctioned post and there cannot be any permanent continuance of part-time temporary employees as held. Part-time temporary employees in a Government run institution cannot claim parity in salary with regular employees of the Government on the principle of equal pay for equal work. *M.R. Shah, A.S. Bopanna, JJ. Union of India v. Ilmo Devi, C. A. No. 5689 of 2021 07-10-2021

31. Consumer Law – The onus of proof that there was deficiency in service is on the complainant. *Hemant Gupta, V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. Sgs India Ltd.  v. Dolphin International Ltd., C. A. No. 5759 of 2009 06-10-2021

32. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 139 raises the presumption “unless the contrary is proved”. Once the complainant discharges the burden of proving that the instrument was executed by the accused; the presumption under Section 139 shifts the burden on the accused. The expression “unless the contrary is proved” would demonstrate that it is only for the accused at the trial to adduce evidence of such facts or circumstances on the basis of which the burden would stand discharged. These are matters of evidence and trial. *Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. M/s Gimpex Private Limited v. Manoj Goel, Crl. A. No. 1068 of 2021 08-10-2021

33. Delay, Laches And Acquiescence – When acquiescence is followed by delay, it may become laches. The concept of acquiescence is to be seen on a case-to-case basis. Sanjay Kishan Kaul, *M.M. Sundresh; JJ. Union of India v. N Murugesan, C. A. No. 2491 of 2021 07-10-2021

34. Letter of Intent (LOI) –  On taking note of the contention, a close perusal of the phrase employed in the LOI would indicate the onetime payment made upfront is shown as “nonrefundable” and such payment is towards execution of the Operating Lease Agreement. If that be the position, the terms of LOI is clear that the said payment is towards the lease rentals and is the upfront payment which becomes a part of the lease transaction and therefore not refundable only if the lease agreement comes into operation and not otherwise. The word employed is not “forfeiture”, therefore, the amount payable towards the advance lease rentals and the other advance payments provided in clause 2 of the LOI, cannot be forfeited if there is default in complying with the term and entering into the lease agreement, going by the stipulations contained in the LOI governing the parties herein. M.R. Shah, *A.S. Bopanna; JJ. Paulmech Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, C.A. No. 6023 of 2021 04-10-2021

35. Land Laws – Tenancy & Inams Act – Protected Tenant – Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (Andhra Pradesh, Telangana Area) – Section 28 – Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (Andhra Pradesh, Telangana Area) – Section 38E – Ownership certificate granted under the Tenancy Act would prevail over the grant of occupancy rights certificate under the Inams Act. Sanjay Kishan Kaul, *Hemant Gupta; JJ. Thota Sridhar Reddy v. Mandala Ramulamma, C.A. No. 2506 of 2021 01-10-2021

36. Transfer Petition – As the transfer petition has become infructuous, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the miscellaneous application. Accordingly, the application is dismissed as withdrawn. Abhay S. Oka; J. Nidhi Sethi v. Harsh Kumar, M.A. No. of 2020 01-10-2021

37. Transfer Petition – the parties have resolved their inter se disputes and the proceedings have been withdrawn pursuant to the said settlement. S. Ravindra Bhat; J. Swati Chaudhary v. Nitesh Kumar, T. P. (c) No. 1689 / 2017 04-10-2021

38. Registration Act, 1908 – Sections 17(1)(b) and 49 – Non-registration of documents required to be registered – Family Settlement – Principles relating to the law of family settlement / family arrangement – Unregistered Family Settlement – Effect of. *K.M. Joseph, S. Ravindra Bhat; JJ. Korukonda Chalapathi Rao v. Korukonda Annapurna Sampath Kumar, C.A. No. 6141 of 2021 01-10-2021

39. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Whether the role of the appellants in the capacity of the Director of the defaulter company makes them vicariously liable for the activities of the defaulter Company as defined under Section 141 of the NI Act? In that perception, whether the appellant had committed the offence chargeable under Section 138 of the NI Act? *Ajay Rastogi, Abhay S. Oka; JJ. Ashutosh Ashok Parasrampuriya v. M/s. Gharrkul Industries Pvt. Ltd., Crl. A. No. 1206 of 2021 08-10-2021

40. Family Law – Transfer petition filed by the petitioner-wife seeking transfer of divorce petition filed by the respondent-husband – In case the presence of the petitioner is required on any particular date, the Family Court at Bengaluru shall fix date(s) convenient to the petitioner. In such event, the Family Court shall ensure that the petitioner is paid Rs.10,000/- for every date of hearing when she will be required to remain present for recording of her evidence and/or for such other purposes as are necessary. The respondent shall pay the said amount to the petitioner. S. Ravindra Bhat; J. Parul Jaiswal v. Avinash Jaiswal, T.P. (C) No. 2189 / 2019 04-10-2021

41. Service Law – Every time the teachers were not supposed to approach the appropriate authority for getting the benefit as and when there is a revision of pay as per the pay commission recommendations. *M.R. Shah, A.S. Bopanna; JJ. Keraleeya Samajam v. Pratibha Dattatray Kulkarni, SLP (C) No. 21660 of 2019 01-10-2021

42. Consumer Law – Electricity – Disconnection of supply in default of payment – The raising of an additional demand in the form of “short assessment notice”, on the ground that in the bills raised during a particular period of time, the multiply factor was wrongly mentioned, cannot tantamount to deficiency in service. If a licensee discovers in the course of audit or otherwise that a consumer has been short billed, the licensee is certainly entitled to raise a demand. So long as the consumer does not dispute the correctness of the claim made by the licensee that there was short assessment, it is not open to the consumer to claim that there was any deficiency. Hemant Gupta, V. Ramasubramanian; JJ. M/s Prem Cottex v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, C. A. No. 7235 of 2009 05-10-2021

43. Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 3 – “a fact” – Conduct of a party would be construed as a fact under Section 8. Such a conduct may either be a previous or subsequent one. It is the product of a motive or a preparation. When evidence is given on the conduct of a party and if it is proved to the satisfaction of the court particularly when it involves an admission, adequate weightage is required to be given. Such a conduct would include a silence emanating from a party who is expected to speak and express. When a party makes a claim based upon revocation of the earlier Will, as indicated in the subsequent one, the said acknowledgement of the former would form part of a conduct leading to a relevant fact vis-à-vis a fact in issue. Sanjay Kishan Kaul, *M.M. Sundresh; JJ. V. Prabhakara v. Basavaraj K., C.A. No. 1376 – 1377 / 2010 07-10-2021

44. Rent Control & Eviction – The Eviction Petition was filed primarily on three grounds; (i) willful default, (ii) unauthorized subletting and (iii) creating additional accommodation. Rent Controller passed an ex-parte order directing the tenants to deposit the arrears of rent. Applications filed for setting aside ex-parte decree stating that they came across about the ex-parte decree of eviction at the stage when the Court Amin came to take possession of their shops. The Rent Controller dismissed their application seeking condonation of delay. The High Court in its revisional jurisdiction after taking into consideration the material on record, arrived to the conclusion that the delay of 175 days was bona fide and has been satisfactorily explained and allowed the application seeking condonation of delay of 175 days. In sequel thereof, the ex-parte decree was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the Rent Controller to hear the parties on merits. Appeal dismissed. *Ajay Rastogi, Abhay S. Oka; JJ. Ambika Murali v.  Valliammal, C. A. No. 9355 of 2010 07-10-2021

45. Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 – Whether in the Lok Adalat held by the High Court, was it open for the members of the Lok Adalat to enter into the merits of the writ petition and to dismiss the same on merits, in absence of any settlement arrived at between the parties? Held, the jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat would be to determine and to arrive at a compromise or a settlement between the parties to a dispute and once the aforesaid settlement / compromise fails and no compromise or settlement could be arrived at between the parties, the Lok Adalat has to return the case to the Court from which the reference has been received for disposal in accordance with law and in any case, the Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction at all to decide the matter on meris once it is found that compromise or settlement could not be arrived at between the parties. *M.R. Shah, A.S. Bopanna; JJ. Estate Officer v. Colonel H.V. Mankotia, C.A. No. 6223 of 2021 07-10-2021

46. Transfer Petition – Withdrawal of the Allegations – No objection to transfer the title suit – Application allowed. Abhay S. Oka; J. M/s. Himalaya Distilleries Limited v. Urmila Pradhan, T. P. (c) No. 2498 / 2019 01-10-2021

47. Penal Code, 1860 – Section 506 – there is any supporting evidence except the vague statement of the prosecutrix that whenever she shouted when he had attempted to have sexual acts with her, the appellant had threatened her not to say anything to anyone as otherwise he would kill her. There is no other statement or evidence relating to the incident or the manner in which the threat in its true sense was put forth. In that view, the conviction and sentence under Section 506 imposed by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. M.R. Shah, *A.S. Bopanna; JJ. Manoj Mishra @ Chhotkau v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Crl. A. No. 1167 of 2021 08-10-2021

48. Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 – Section 19 – Application for setting aside decree, award or order – Whether in an appeal/application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Section 19 of the MSME Act, 2006, the appellate court would have any discretion to deviate from deposit of 75% of the awarded amount as a pre-deposit ? Held, The requirement of deposit of 75% of the amount in terms of the award as a pre-deposit is mandatory. However, at the same time, considering the hardship which may be projected before the appellate court and if the appellate court is satisfied that there shall be undue hardship caused to the appellant/applicant to deposit 75% of the awarded amount as a predeposit at a time, the court may allow the pre-deposit to be made in instalments. *M.R. Shah, A.S. Bopanna; JJ. Gujarat State Disaster Management Authority v. M/s Aska Equipments Ltd., C.A. No. 6252 of 2021 08-10-2021

49. Limitation – Second Appeal – Application seeking condonation of delay – The High Court, while dismissing the application seeking condonation of delay in filing second appeal observed that sufficient cause for delay has not been established. The litigant, who is contesting the matter, cannot be negligent and it would be unfair to deprive the respondent, litigating for the last 17 years, of the valuable right that has accrued to him. A second appeal lies to the High Court if the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved. the High Court erred in dismissing the second appeal solely on the ground of limitation. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order of the High Court is set­aside. Indira Banerjee, J.K. Maheshwari; JJ. Dr. Yashwantrao Bhaskarrao Deshmukh v. Raghunath Kisan Saindane, C.A. No. 6315 of 2021 08-10-2021

50. Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 – Section 9 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 125 – Transfer petition has been filed by the petitioner-wife – there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent, who has not opposed the petition even though he has been made aware of it in the pending proceedings – Request for transfer of proceedings  is justified. S. Ravindra Bhat; J. Shakun Srivastava v. Prem Prakash Srivastava, T.P. (c) No. 1840 / 2018 04-10-2021 

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 1 Average: 5]