REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.10353 OF 2016 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.14912 of 2011) NAVJOT SINGH SIDHU …APPELLANT VERSUS OM PARKASH SONI & ORS. …RESPONDENTS J U D G M E N T RANJAN GOGOI,J 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellant before this Court is the… Read More Order VI rule 16 and Order VII rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for dismissal of the election petition contending that on account of deficiencies in the pleadings no triable issue(s) is disclosed to justify a regular trial of the allegations made. According to the appellant the election petition, in its entirety, had failed to disclose any cause of action whatsoever. Though some relief (details of which need not be noticed) was granted to the appellant by the High Court, three broad categories of allegations contained in the election petition were held to disclose triable issues. Hence a regular trial of the same was ordered by the High Court by the order under challenge. Aggrieved, this appeal has been filed. = Section 123(7) of the R.P. Act, Corrupt practice = The allegation in the Election Petition is that the post to which Jagjit Singh Suchu was transferred from the Punjab State Electricity Board was under the State Government and the assistance received by the returned candidate from the said person is while he was rendering service as Additional Superintending Engineer, namely, while he was performing the duties in the State Government. If that be so, the aforesaid issue also will have to go for a full trial as ordered by the High Court. ; efflux of time=The election took place in the year 2009. The life of the House for which the election took place has long expired. The third allegation is not one with regard to commission of any corrupt practice. Hence by efflux of time the said issue has become academic rendering it unnecessary for us to enter into any discussion on the said question.
CRP 200 / 2016 CRPSR 15960 / 2015 CASE IS:DISPOSED PETITIONER RESPONDENT THE MANDAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, KONIJERLA & 3 ORS VS BODAPOTHULA VENKAIAH & 2 ORS PET.ADV. : GP FOR ARBITRATION (TG) RESP.ADV. : RAMANA SUBJECT: C.P.C. DISTRICT: KHAMMAM FILING DATE: 13-07-2015 POSTING STAGE : FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS DISPOSED ON 18-03-2016 DISMISSED REG. DATE : 13-01-2016 LISTING DATE : 18-03-2016 STATUS : CAV HON’BLE JUDGE(S): M.SEETHARAMA MURTI THE HON’BLE… Read More Section 5 of the limitation Act.=delay of (3776) days in filing the aforementioned proposed first appeal suit =the plaintiff at the instance of the villagers had committed that he would not execute the decree.- It is hard to believe that the plaintiff, who had obtained a decree on merits, after a serious and long drawn contest, had made such a commitment. Further, even if any such commitment was said to have been made, still, the Government officer concerned should have approached the Assistant Government Pleader and ought to have obtained his opinion and ought to have got preferred a first appeal and ought to have got the settlement recorded in the said appeal.;The next cause urged for condonation of delay is that the record was misplaced and could not be traced till the execution petition reached an advanced stage of the evidence on the side of the judgment debtors/ Government. The said averment lays bare that even after the execution petition was filed, no sincere efforts were made by the officer and his staff concerned for tracing the file. Therefore, the reasons assigned ex facie appear to be not sufficient and valid reasons for condonation of the long delay of more than (3500) days.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.473 of 2009 Saroj Agarwalla (Dead) Thr. LR Abhishek Agrawalla …..Appellant Versus Yasheel Jain …..Respondent W I T H CIVIL APPEAL NO.474 OF 2009 J U D G M E N T SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. Both the appeals arise out of same… Read More “caveatable interest”.= a person establishing prima facie interest in the estate of the testator should be permitted to maintain a caveat and contest a claim for probate. -Caveat. Any person intending to oppose the issuing of a grant of probate or letters of administration must either personally or by his attorney file a caveat in the Registry in Form No.12.= whether the caveator has a caveatable interest – The preliminary issue does not relate to the validity or legality of the Will sought to be probated but only to the issue whether the caveator has an interest for which he can maintain the caveat.- “the Court of Probate is only concerned with the question as to whether the document put forward as the last will and testament of a deceased person was duly executed and attested in accordance with law and whether at the time of such execution the testator had sound disposing mind. The question whether a particular bequest is good or bad is not within the purview of the Probate Court.”- although the caveator Yasheel Jain did not file the original Will, the Division Bench has noted that he has filed a photocopy of the prior Will allegedly executed by the testator and has also produced the registered envelope through which such copy was sent to him by the testator along with the forwarding letter written by him. Upon such materials, the Division Bench recorded its prima facie satisfaction that the caveat should not be discharged. – whether Malati is really a lawful widow of the testator or not cannot be conclusively adjudicated in the probate proceedings and therefore, only a prima facie view was possible to decide whether her caveat should be discharged or not. We find ourselves in agreement with the views taken by the High Court in the impugned judgments. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed but with no order as to costs. 2016 Oct. http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=44263
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8194 OF 2016 RAJENDER BANSAL & ORS. …..APPELLANT(S) VERSUS BHURU (D) THR. LRS. & ORS. …..RESPONDENT(S) J U D G M E N T A.K. SIKRI, J. The appellants in this appeal are the landlords who had filed suit for eviction… Read More whether Rent Act would apply even to the pending suits or it will be enforced only from the date when notification covering the area in-question is issued and, therefore, will have no effect on the suits which are already pending before the civil courts?= 2016 Oct. http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/qrydisp.asp
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 329 OF 2005 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .…APPELLANTS VERSUS M/S. CIPLA LTD. & ANR. .…RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4005 OF 2004 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ….APPELLANTS VERSUS M/S. MARTIN & HARRIS LABORATORIES LTD. & ANR. ….RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL… Read More Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1995= there are about 250 large units and about 8000 small scale units in operation. These units produce about 350 bulk drugs, and as we have mentioned above more than 2000 formulations. The Drug Policy, 1994 also mentions that the production of bulk drugs in 1993-94 is in the region of Rs.1320 crores and for the same period the production of formulations is in the region of Rs. 6900 crores. In other words, not only is the drug industry in the country extremely large with heavy financial stakes but there is lot at stake in it not only for the industry but also for the consumers. For this reason, the Courts have to extremely cautious in interfering in any manner whatsoever with the working of the drug industry. Any interference by the Courts would have wide ranging repercussions not only in commercial terms but also for the people of the country.- Whether the notification dated 13th July, 1999 issued by the Central Government under Paragraph 7 of the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1995 prescribing the norms for conversion cost, packing charges and process loss of raw materials (other than packing materials in conversion) and packing and process loss of packing materials in packaging was issued mechanically and without any application of mind or is it valid in law? Our answer to this is that the notification is valid and that the notification was not issued mechanically or without any application of mind. Whether the notifications dated 12th July, 2000, 12th July, 2001, 12th July, 2002 and 11th July, 2003 issued by the Central Government under Paragraph 7 of the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1995 re-notifying the norms prescribed on 13th July, 1999 were issued mechanically, without any application of mind and without re-determining the norms every year as required by the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1995 and are they valid in law? Our answer is that the notifications are valid and were not issued mechanically or without any application of mind and that it was not necessary to re-determine the norms every year. Whether various notifications issued by the Central Government fixing the retail price or ceiling price of formulations under Paragraphs 8 and 9 (as the case may be) of the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1995 without determining the norm for cost of packing material as required by Paragraph 7 of the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1995 are valid in law? Our answer is in the affirmative. Whether fixing the retail price of a formulation under Paragraph 8 of the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1995 without first fixing the sale price of a bulk drug under Paragraph 3 of the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1995 utilized in the manufacture of a formulation is valid in law? Our answer is in the affirmative. – 2016 Oct. http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=44262
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No .10286 OF 2016 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 16885 of 2012] STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR …. APPELLANT VERSUS VICHAR KRANTI INTERNATIONAL & ANR ……RESPONDENTS J U D G M E N T Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD, J Leave granted. Delay… Read More neonatal/infant deaths which took place in January-May 2012 in GB Pant (Children) Hospital, Srinagar. We would commend to the High Court the need for constituting a Committee of Experts to scrutinize the conditions in public-government hospitals in the state. The High Court would be at liberty to constitute a Committee of medical experts and administrators. The Committee shall submit a report on the state of public – government hospitals in the state and covering among other things, the areas which have been emphasised above. The High Court would be at liberty, after scrutinizing the report of the Expert Committee and upon hearing the relevant stakeholders including the state, to issue appropriate directions and monitor compliance. The hospitals which are conducted by the state and by public agencies cater to medical needs of the poorest strata of society. The need for ensuring proper medical care of a requisite standard has to be duly addressed. 9 We hence remand the proceedings back to the High Court for considering both aspects of the matter, as highlighted above. To facilitate this exercise, the impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 18 November 2011 is set aside insofar as it deals with the regulation of private practice by government doctors. The proceedings shall stand restored to the High Court for hearing afresh having regard to the observations made above.=2016 Oct. http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=44258
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 463 of 2006 HET RAM BENIWAL & ORS. …. Appellant(s) Versus RAGHUVEER SINGH & ORS. ….Respondent(s) With CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 464 of 2006 BHURAMAL SWAMI …. Appellant(s) Versus RAGHUVEER SINGH & ORS. ….Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T L.… Read More While addressing the gathering, the Appellants made scandalous statements against the High Court which were published in Lok Sammat newspaper on 24.02.2001 – Appellant No. 1 – “Ex MLA Het Ram Beniwal said that, there are two types of justice in the courts. A thief of Rs.100/- cannot get bail, if the lathi and gandasi is hit then the courts ask for the statements of the witnesses and diary, but Miglani and Gurdayal Singh committed the murder, even then anticipatory bail had been taken on the application without diary.” Appellant No. 2 – “Navrang Chaudhary, Advocate, District President, CITU said that the general public has lost confidence in the law and justice.” Appellant No. 3 – “MCP Leader Bhuramal Swami naming the judge of the High Court said in attacking way that all around there is rule of rich people whether it is bureaucracy or judiciary.” Appellant No. 4 – “Sarpanch Hardeep Singh told that there was influence of money behind the anticipatory bail of the accused.”= “Ordinarily, the Court would not use the power to punish for contempt for curbing the right of freedom of speech and expression, which is guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution. Only when the criticism of judicial institution transgresses all limits of decency and fairness or there is total lack of objectivity or there is deliberate attempt to denigrate the institution then the court would use this power. – The statements made by the Appellants, accusing the judiciary of corruption lower the authority of the Court. The Explanation to sub-Section 12 (1) of the Act provides that an apology should not be rejected merely on the ground that it is qualified or tendered at a belated stage, if the accused makes it bona fide. The stand taken by the Appellants in the contempt petition and the affidavit filed in this Court does not inspire any confidence that the apology is made bona fide. After a detailed consideration of the submissions made by both sides and the evidence on record, we are in agreement with the judgment of the High Court that the Appellants are guilty of committing contempt of Court. After considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case including the fact that the contemptuous statements were made in 2001, we modify the sentence to only payment of fine of Rs. 2,000/- each. The Appeal is dismissed with the said modification.= 2016 Oct. http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=44257
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 1983-2039 OF 2016 [Arising out of SLP(C) NOs. 9733-9789 OF 2014] The Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore …Appellant(s) Versus Ayili Stone Industries Etc. Etc. …Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T Dipak Misra, J. These appeals, by special leave, assail… Read More There is a distinction between polished granite stone or slabs and tiles. If a polished granite stone is used in a building for any purpose, it will come under Entry 17(i) of Part S of the second schedule, but if it is a tile, which comes into existence by different process, a new and distinct commodity emerges and it has a different commercial identity in the market. The process involved is extremely relevant. That aspect has not been gone into. The Assessing Officer while framing the assessment order has referred to Entry 17(i) of Part S but without any elaboration on Entry 8. Entry 8 carves out tiles as a different commodity. It uses the words “other titles”. A granite tile would come within the said Entry if involvement of certain activities is established. To elaborate, if a polished granite which is a slab and used on the floor, it cannot be called a tile for the purpose of coming within the ambit and sweep of Entry 8. Some other process has to be undertaken. If tiles are manufactured or produced after undertaking some other activities, the position would be different. A finding has to be arrived at by carrying out due enquiry and for that purpose appropriate exercise has to be undertaken. In the absence of that, a final conclusion cannot be reached. 29. In view of the aforesaid, we allow the appeals, set aside the orders passed by the High Court and all the authorities and remit the matter to the Assessing Officer to re-adjudicate the matter keeping in view the observations made hereinabov
Reportable SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 10182-10183 OF 2016 (@ SLP(C) Nos. 28959-28960 of 2015) Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution …Appellant(s) Corporation Ltd. (TANGEDCO) Rep. By Its Chairman & Managing Director and Anr. Etc. Versus CSEPDI – Trishe Consortium, Rep. By its …Respondent(s) Managing Director & Anr. WITH CIVIL APPEAL… Read More An aggrieved party can approach the Court at the appropriate stage, not when the bids are being considered. We do not intend to specify. It is appreciable the owner in certain kind of tenders call the bidders for negotiations to show fairness transparently. But the present case is not a one of such nature. Once the price bid was opened, a bidder could not have submitted representations on his own and seek a mandamus from the Court to take certain aspects into consideration. We have stressed this aspect only to highlight the role of the Court keeping in mind the established principle of restraint.